Gavin J Blake1, James D Otvos, Nader Rifai, Paul M Ridker. 1. Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass 02215, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) offers an alternative, spectroscopic means of quantifying LDL and of measuring LDL particle size. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective nested case-control study among healthy middle-aged women to assess LDL particle size (NMR) and concentration (NMR) as risk factors for future myocardial infarction, stroke, or death of coronary heart disease. Median baseline levels of LDL particle concentration (NMR) were higher (1597 vs 1404 nmol/L; P= 0.0001) and LDL particle size (NMR) was lower (21.5 vs 21.8 nm; P=0.046) among women who subsequently had cardiovascular events (n=130) than among those who did not (n= 130). Of these 2 factors, LDL particle concentration (NMR) was the stronger predictor (relative risk for the highest compared with the lowest quartile=4.17, 95% CI 1.96-8.87). This compared with a relative risk of 3.11 (95% CI 1.55-6.26) for the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol and a relative risk of 5.91 (95% CI 2.65-13.15) for C-reactive protein. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for LDL particle concentration (NMR), total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio, and C-reactive protein were 0.64, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively. LDL particle concentration (NMR) correlated with several traditionally assessed lipid and nonlipid risk factors, and thus adjustment for these tended to attenuate the magnitude of association between LDL particle concentration (NMR) and risk. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, LDL particle concentration measured by NMR spectroscopy was a predictor of future cardiovascular risk. However, the magnitude of predictive value of LDL particle concentration (NMR) was not substantively different from that of the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio and was less than that of C-reactive protein.
BACKGROUND: Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) offers an alternative, spectroscopic means of quantifying LDL and of measuring LDL particle size. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective nested case-control study among healthy middle-aged women to assess LDL particle size (NMR) and concentration (NMR) as risk factors for future myocardial infarction, stroke, or death of coronary heart disease. Median baseline levels of LDL particle concentration (NMR) were higher (1597 vs 1404 nmol/L; P= 0.0001) and LDL particle size (NMR) was lower (21.5 vs 21.8 nm; P=0.046) among women who subsequently had cardiovascular events (n=130) than among those who did not (n= 130). Of these 2 factors, LDL particle concentration (NMR) was the stronger predictor (relative risk for the highest compared with the lowest quartile=4.17, 95% CI 1.96-8.87). This compared with a relative risk of 3.11 (95% CI 1.55-6.26) for the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol and a relative risk of 5.91 (95% CI 2.65-13.15) for C-reactive protein. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for LDL particle concentration (NMR), total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio, and C-reactive protein were 0.64, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively. LDL particle concentration (NMR) correlated with several traditionally assessed lipid and nonlipid risk factors, and thus adjustment for these tended to attenuate the magnitude of association between LDL particle concentration (NMR) and risk. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, LDL particle concentration measured by NMR spectroscopy was a predictor of future cardiovascular risk. However, the magnitude of predictive value of LDL particle concentration (NMR) was not substantively different from that of the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio and was less than that of C-reactive protein.
Authors: Derek M Huffman; Joris Deelen; Kenny Ye; Aviv Bergman; Eline P Slagboom; Nir Barzilai; Gil Atzmon Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Phyllis C Tien; Michael F Schneider; Christopher Cox; Mardge Cohen; Roksana Karim; Jason Lazar; Mary Young; Marshall J Glesby Journal: AIDS Date: 2010-11-27 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Ron C Hoogeveen; John W Gaubatz; Wensheng Sun; Rhiannon C Dodge; Jacy R Crosby; Jennifer Jiang; David Couper; Salim S Virani; Sekar Kathiresan; Eric Boerwinkle; Christie M Ballantyne Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: James H Stein; Lauren Komarow; Bruno R Cotter; Judith S Currier; Michael P Dubé; Carl J Fichtenbaum; Mariana Gerschenson; Carol K C Mitchell; Robert L Murphy; Kathleen Squires; Robert A Parker; Francesca J Torriani Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Daniel A Duprez; Lewis H Kuller; Russell Tracy; James Otvos; David A Cooper; Jennifer Hoy; Jacqueline Neuhaus; Nicholas I Paton; Nina Friis-Moller; Fiona Lampe; Angelike P Liappis; James D Neaton Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-05-13 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Monique A Ford; Joseph P McConnell; Shahar Lavi; Charanjit S Rihal; Abhiram Prasad; Gurpreet S Sandhu; Stacy J Hartman; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 5.162