BACKGROUND: Few studies have been conducted that make comparisons between traditional measures of cholesterol and cholesterol subfractions, and only one study has compared low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) particle number, LDL-C particle size and LDL-C among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between cholesterol measures and differences in risk stratification when using ATP-III guidelines compared with cholesterol particle number and size in ESRD patients. METHODS: ESRD patients (n=1,092) from clinics associated with the Central Texas Nephrology Associates were recruited to participate in this study. RESULTS: LDL particle size categorized more patients at-risk when compared with LDL-C, non-HDL-C and triglycerides. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed a strong significant correlation between LDL-C and LDL particle number (r2=0.908, p=0.0001) and a significant correlation between LDL particle number and LDL particle size (r2=-0.290, p=0.0001). A significant but weak correlation existed between LDL-C and LDL particle size (r2=0.107, p=0.0001). A significant correlation existed between LDL particle number and triglycerides (r2=0.335, p=0.0001) and a significant inverse relationship between LDL particle size and triglycerides (r2=-0.500, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study seems to suggest that using LDL particle size may help to identify those who would not be considered at-risk using LDL-C, non-HDL-C or triglycerides alone, and can be used as a further screening measure that may be more predictive of coronary heart disease outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have been conducted that make comparisons between traditional measures of cholesterol and cholesterol subfractions, and only one study has compared low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) particle number, LDL-C particle size and LDL-C among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between cholesterol measures and differences in risk stratification when using ATP-III guidelines compared with cholesterol particle number and size in ESRDpatients. METHODS:ESRDpatients (n=1,092) from clinics associated with the Central Texas Nephrology Associates were recruited to participate in this study. RESULTS: LDL particle size categorized more patients at-risk when compared with LDL-C, non-HDL-C and triglycerides. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed a strong significant correlation between LDL-C and LDL particle number (r2=0.908, p=0.0001) and a significant correlation between LDL particle number and LDL particle size (r2=-0.290, p=0.0001). A significant but weak correlation existed between LDL-C and LDL particle size (r2=0.107, p=0.0001). A significant correlation existed between LDL particle number and triglycerides (r2=0.335, p=0.0001) and a significant inverse relationship between LDL particle size and triglycerides (r2=-0.500, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study seems to suggest that using LDL particle size may help to identify those who would not be considered at-risk using LDL-C, non-HDL-C or triglycerides alone, and can be used as a further screening measure that may be more predictive of coronary heart disease outcomes.
Authors: Sekar Kathiresan; James D Otvos; Lisa M Sullivan; Michelle J Keyes; Ernst J Schaefer; Peter W F Wilson; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Sander J Robins Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Samia Mora; James D Otvos; Nader Rifai; Robert S Rosenson; Julie E Buring; Paul M Ridker Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Angela A Rivellese; Lidia Patti; David Kaufman; Jianhui Zhu; Giovanni Annuzzi; Olga Vaccaro; Sven O Ebbesson; Wm James Howard; Gabriele Riccardi; Barbara V Howard Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Karim El Harchaoui; Benoit J Arsenault; Remco Franssen; Jean-Pierre Després; G Kees Hovingh; Erik S G Stroes; James D Otvos; Nicholas J Wareham; John J P Kastelein; Kay-Tee Khaw; S Matthijs Boekholdt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John H Contois; Joseph P McConnell; Amar A Sethi; Gyorgy Csako; Sridevi Devaraj; Daniel M Hoefner; G Russell Warnick Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Archna Bajaj; Dawei Xie; Esteban Cedillo-Couvert; Jeanne Charleston; Jing Chen; Rajat Deo; Harold I Feldman; Alan S Go; Jiang He; Edward Horwitz; Radhakrishna Kallem; Mahboob Rahman; Matthew R Weir; Amanda H Anderson; Daniel J Rader Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ni Shi; Desmond Aroke; Qi Jin; Dong Hoon Lee; Hisham Hussan; Xuehong Zhang; JoAnn E Manson; Erin S LeBlanc; Ana Barac; Chrisa Arcan; Steven K Clinton; Edward L Giovannucci; Fred K Tabung Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2021-09-20