OBJECTIVES: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the main laboratory parameter used for the management of cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to compare measured LDL-C with LDL-C as calculated by the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, Vujovic, and Sampson formulas with regard to triglyceride (TG), LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C)/TG ratio. METHODS: The 1,209 calculated LDL-C results were compared with LDL-C measured using ultracentrifugation-precipitation (first study) and direct (second study) methods. The Passing-Bablok regression was applied to compare the methods. The percentage difference between calculated and measured LDL-C (total error) and the number of results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were established. RESULTS: There was good correlation between the measurement and calculation methods (r 0.962-0.985). The median total error ranged from -2.7%/+1.4% (first/second study) for Vujovic formula to -6.7%/-4.3% for Friedewald formula. The numbers of underestimated results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were 67 (Vujovic), 134 (Martin/Hopkins), 157 (Samspon), and 239 (Friedewald). Less than 7% of those results were obtained for samples with TG >4.5 mmol/L. From 57% (Martin/Hopkins) to 81% (Vujovic) of underestimated results were obtained for samples with a non-HDL-C/TG ratio of <2.4. CONCLUSIONS: The Martin/Hopkins, Vujovic and Sampson formulas appear to be more accurate than the Friedewald formula. To minimize the number of significantly underestimated LDL-C results, we propose the implementation of risk categories according to non-HDL-C/TG ratio and suggest that for samples with a non-HDL-C/TG ratio of <1.2, the LDL-C level should not be calculated but measured independently from TG level.
OBJECTIVES: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the main laboratory parameter used for the management of cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to compare measured LDL-C with LDL-C as calculated by the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, Vujovic, and Sampson formulas with regard to triglyceride (TG), LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C)/TG ratio. METHODS: The 1,209 calculated LDL-C results were compared with LDL-C measured using ultracentrifugation-precipitation (first study) and direct (second study) methods. The Passing-Bablok regression was applied to compare the methods. The percentage difference between calculated and measured LDL-C (total error) and the number of results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were established. RESULTS: There was good correlation between the measurement and calculation methods (r 0.962-0.985). The median total error ranged from -2.7%/+1.4% (first/second study) for Vujovic formula to -6.7%/-4.3% for Friedewald formula. The numbers of underestimated results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were 67 (Vujovic), 134 (Martin/Hopkins), 157 (Samspon), and 239 (Friedewald). Less than 7% of those results were obtained for samples with TG >4.5 mmol/L. From 57% (Martin/Hopkins) to 81% (Vujovic) of underestimated results were obtained for samples with a non-HDL-C/TG ratio of <2.4. CONCLUSIONS: The Martin/Hopkins, Vujovic and Sampson formulas appear to be more accurate than the Friedewald formula. To minimize the number of significantly underestimated LDL-C results, we propose the implementation of risk categories according to non-HDL-C/TG ratio and suggest that for samples with a non-HDL-C/TG ratio of <1.2, the LDL-C level should not be calculated but measured independently from TG level.