4.5 Article

Determination of optimal cut-off points after a high-fat meal corresponding to fasting elevations of triglyceride and remnant cholesterol in Chinese subjects

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12944-019-1146-9

关键词

Postprandial; Non-fasting; Triglyceride; Remnant cholesterol; Chinese subjects

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270956, 81470577]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Postprandial high triglyceride (HTG), marking elevated level of remnant cholesterol (RC), is an independent risk factor of coronary heart disease (CHD). The postprandial cut-off points for HTG and high RC (HRC) after a daily meal are recommended as 2.0 mmol/L and 0.9 mmol/L, respectively, by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), while those after a high-fat meal in Chinese subjects were not explored. Methods: Ninety subjects, including 60 CHD patients (CHD group) and 30 non-CHD controls (CON group), were enrolled in this study. Serum levels of blood lipids, including calculated RC, were monitored at 0, 2, 4 and 6 h after a high-fat meal with 800 kcal and 50 g fat. Analysis of c-statistic was used to determine the cut-off points for postprandial HTG and HRC. Results: Postprandial levels of triglyceride (TG) and RC significantly increased and peaked at 4 h after a high-fat meal in two groups, although those in CHD group were significantly higher (P < 0.05). The optimal cut-off point to predict HTG at 4 h corresponding to fasting TG >= 1.7 mmol/L was 3.12 mmol/L, and that to predict HRC at 4 h corresponding to fasting RC >= 0.8 mmol/L was 1.36 mmol/L. According to the new cut-off points, the omissive diagnosis rates of postprandial HTG and HRC decreased obviously. Conclusion: The cut-off points of postprandial HTG and HRC in Chinese subjects after a high-fat meal were higher than those after a daily meal recommended by the EAS, indicating that specific cut-off points should be determined after a certain high-fat meal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据