4.6 Article

Comparison of Three Methods for LDLC Calculation for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Categorisation in Three Distinct Patient Populations

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 668-677

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2022.12.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Switching from the Friedewald equation to the Martin-Hopkins or Sampson-National Institutes of Health equations for LDLC calculation can lead to reclassification of patients into different cardiovascular disease risk categories. There is a strong correlation between the calculated LDLC values using these different equations, but the difference is greater with higher triglyceride levels and lower LDLC levels. Clinical laboratories are recommended to report results using either the Martin-Hopkins or Sampson-National Institutes of Health equations, but the latter should not be used in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia until further studies are conducted.
Background: Limitations of the Friedewald equation for low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (F-LDLC) calculation led to the Martin-Hopkins (M-LDLC) and Sampson-National Institutes of Health (S-LDLC) equa-tions. We studied these newer calculations of LDLC for correlation and discordance for stratification into the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) 2021 Dyslipidemia Guidelines' cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk categories. Methods: We performed analyses on lipid profiles from 3 populations: records of a hospital biochemistry laboratory (population 1), lipid clinic patients without select monogenic dyslipidemias (population 2A), and lipid clinic patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH; population 2B). Results: There was very strong correlation among the 3 calculated LDLC. In populations 1 and 2A, M-LDLC and S-LDLC were progressively higher than F-LDLC as triglyceride (TG) levels increased from normal to similar to 5 mmol/L. In population 2B, M-LDLC was higher than F-LDLC, but S-LDLC was progressively lower than F-LDLC. Using the CCS 2021 guidelines' 4 CVD risk categories, 7.0% (population 2A) to 7.2% (population 1) of cases for M-LDLC vs F-LDLC and 3.9% (population 2A) to 4.4% (population 1) of cases for S-LDLC vs F-LDLC were reclassified to an adjacent CVD risk category, mostly from a lower to a higher risk category. Conclusions: Switching from F-LDLC to S-LDLC or M-LDLC can reclassify up to similar to 4.4% or 7.2% of patients, respectively, to another CCS CVD risk category. The difference between F-LDLC and M-LDLC or S-LDLC is greater with higher TG, and with lower LDLC. We recommend that clinical laboratories switch to reporting results from either M-LDLC or S-LDLC, but S-LDLC should not be used in FH patients, pending further studies.

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

4.6
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