P Krishnaveni1, Vanitha Mn Gowda2. 1. Postgraduate Student, Department of Biochemistry, M S Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals , Bangalore, India . 2. Associate Professor, Department of Biochemistry, M S Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals , Bangalore, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An important aspect of the assessment of cardiovascular risk for a dyslipidemic subject is the estimation of serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C). There are many homogenous assays currently available for the estimation of serum LDL-C. Most clinical laboratories determine LDL-C (mg/dL) by Friedewald's formula (FF), LDL-C = (TC) - (HDL-C) - (TG/5). Recently Anandaraja and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C, AR-LDL-C = 0.9 TC- (0.9 TG/5)-28. AIM & OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was: a) to determine if, and to what extent, LDL-C level was underestimated/overestimated when it was calculated using the formulae compared with direct measurement of LDL-C, and b) to determine which of the calculated formulae show maximum correlation with direct LDL cholesterol method at different TG levels. SETTING & DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Record analysis was done from the 370 (TG <400mg/dl) lipid profile reports of patients above 18 years. LDL-C estimation was done by homogenous assay and also calculated using the Friedewald's Formula and Anandaraja's Formula. RESULTS: The mean LDL-C levels were 105.17± 43.4, 102.98 ±42.5, and 98.20 ±43.7 mg/dl for D-LDL-C, F-LDL-C and AR-LDL-C, respectively. A good correlation was found between the calculated LDL-C methods and Direct Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol method (D-LDL-C) assay, that is, F-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C (r = 0.937) and AR-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C (r= 0.918). Bland-Altman plot for FF-LDL-C & AR-LDL-C showed minimal negative bias. CONCLUSION: FF-LDL-C correlated maximally with D-LDL-C estimation at all levels of triglycerides except at TG < 100mg/dl. At TG < 100mg/dl, Anandaraja's Formula works better. FF-LDL-C can be used in place of D-LDL-C when the direct method cannot be afforded.
INTRODUCTION: An important aspect of the assessment of cardiovascular risk for a dyslipidemic subject is the estimation of serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C). There are many homogenous assays currently available for the estimation of serum LDL-C. Most clinical laboratories determine LDL-C (mg/dL) by Friedewald's formula (FF), LDL-C = (TC) - (HDL-C) - (TG/5). Recently Anandaraja and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C, AR-LDL-C = 0.9 TC- (0.9 TG/5)-28. AIM & OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was: a) to determine if, and to what extent, LDL-C level was underestimated/overestimated when it was calculated using the formulae compared with direct measurement of LDL-C, and b) to determine which of the calculated formulae show maximum correlation with direct LDL cholesterol method at different TG levels. SETTING & DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Record analysis was done from the 370 (TG <400mg/dl) lipid profile reports of patients above 18 years. LDL-C estimation was done by homogenous assay and also calculated using the Friedewald's Formula and Anandaraja's Formula. RESULTS: The mean LDL-C levels were 105.17± 43.4, 102.98 ±42.5, and 98.20 ±43.7 mg/dl for D-LDL-C, F-LDL-C and AR-LDL-C, respectively. A good correlation was found between the calculated LDL-C methods and Direct Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol method (D-LDL-C) assay, that is, F-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C (r = 0.937) and AR-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C (r= 0.918). Bland-Altman plot for FF-LDL-C & AR-LDL-C showed minimal negative bias. CONCLUSION: FF-LDL-C correlated maximally with D-LDL-C estimation at all levels of triglycerides except at TG < 100mg/dl. At TG < 100mg/dl, Anandaraja's Formula works better. FF-LDL-C can be used in place of D-LDL-C when the direct method cannot be afforded.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiovascular risk; Cholesterol calculation; Direct assay; Dyslipidemia; Homogenous assay; Low density lipoprotein; Method comparison
Authors: Seth S Martin; Michael J Blaha; Mohamed B Elshazly; Eliot A Brinton; Peter P Toth; John W McEvoy; Parag H Joshi; Krishnaji R Kulkarni; Patrick D Mize; Peter O Kwiterovich; Andrew P Defilippis; Roger S Blumenthal; Steven R Jones Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J Rubiés-Prat; J L Reverter; M Sentí; J Pedro-Botet; I Salinas; A Lucas; X Nogués; A Sanmartí Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Joowon Lee; Baojiang Chen; Harold W Kohl; Carolyn E Barlow; Chong do Lee; Nina B Radford; Laura F DeFina; Kelley Pettee Gabriel Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Kathryn L Weston; Liane B Azevedo; Susan Bock; Matthew Weston; Keith P George; Alan M Batterham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240