Nishtha Wadhwa1, Radhika Krishnaswamy2. 1. Postgraduate, Department of Biochemistry, St. John's Medical College , Sarjapur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India . 2. Associate Professor, Department of Biochemistry, St. John's Medical College , Sarjapur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDLc) is widely recognized as an established cardiovascular risk marker. Different formulae have been proposed for calculation of LDLc but have not been validated in Indian population and over a wide range of Triglycerides (TG). Friedewald formula is most commonly used which has various shortcomings. AIM: To calculate LDLc using various formulae and compare it with directly measured LDLc at various ranges of TG concentration in Indian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One year lipid profile data of 21,503 samples was taken. Calculation of LDLc was done by the following formulae: Friedewald; Cordova and Cordova; Vujovic; Ahmadi; Anandaraja; Puavillai and Hattori. Comparison of calculated LDLc with directly measured LDLc was done at following TG ranges: <150mg/dL; 151-199mg/dL; 200-399mg/dL and >400mg/dL using Pearson's correlation coefficient and two-paired t-test. RESULTS: For TG range <150mg/dL, Puavillai formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.978). For TG range 151-199mg/dL, Vujovic formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.977and mean difference of -1.2 mg/dL). For TG range 200-399mg/dL, Vujovic formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.968). For TG range >400 mg/dL, Vujovic formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.791). CONCLUSION: Vujovic formula appears to be more accurate than any other formula when applied to Indian population.
INTRODUCTION:Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDLc) is widely recognized as an established cardiovascular risk marker. Different formulae have been proposed for calculation of LDLc but have not been validated in Indian population and over a wide range of Triglycerides (TG). Friedewald formula is most commonly used which has various shortcomings. AIM: To calculate LDLc using various formulae and compare it with directly measured LDLc at various ranges of TG concentration in Indian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One year lipid profile data of 21,503 samples was taken. Calculation of LDLc was done by the following formulae: Friedewald; Cordova and Cordova; Vujovic; Ahmadi; Anandaraja; Puavillai and Hattori. Comparison of calculated LDLc with directly measured LDLc was done at following TG ranges: <150mg/dL; 151-199mg/dL; 200-399mg/dL and >400mg/dL using Pearson's correlation coefficient and two-paired t-test. RESULTS: For TG range <150mg/dL, Puavillai formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.978). For TG range 151-199mg/dL, Vujovic formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.977and mean difference of -1.2 mg/dL). For TG range 200-399mg/dL, Vujovic formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.968). For TG range >400 mg/dL, Vujovic formula correlated best with direct measurement (r = 0.791). CONCLUSION: Vujovic formula appears to be more accurate than any other formula when applied to Indian population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiovascular disease; Direct low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Vujovic formula