{"title":"不同公式计算ldl -胆固醇与直接测量ldl -胆固醇的比较:一项回顾性研究","authors":"Kruthi B N, A. Nusrath","doi":"10.13189/IJBB.2020.080301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Among the various risk factors for developing dyslipidemia and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), elevated Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) has been recognized as an independent and widely accepted risk factor for CVD. Therefore the objective of the study was to calculate LDL-C using various formulae and to compare the various formulae to calculate LDL-C with direct LDL-C measurement. Materials and methods: It was a retrospective observational study and study was conducted for a period of 3 Months. During this period, 400 consecutive serum samples were included, out of which 37 had TG value more than 400 mg/dl and were excluded from the study. Finally 363 samples data were included for analysis and data were obtained from the investigation ledger of clinical Biochemistry section and same sample Triglyceride, Total Cholesterol and High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol was used for calculating LDL-C using various formulae. Results: A total of 400 lipid profile reports were collected, of these, 37 reports had triglyceride level ≥ 400 mg/dl and hence 363 samples were included. There is no statistical difference between the direct LDL-C (131.64± 29.34mg/dl) and LDL-C level calculated by Friedewald formula (133.85±35.97mg/dl, p>0.05). There is a highly significant statistical difference between the direct LDL-C and the LDL-C level calculated using all other formulae (p=0.0001) Cordova and Cordova formula (88.06 ± 28.40mg/dl), Vujovic formula (80.44 ± 15.52mg/dl), Ahmadi formula (186.34 ± 63.26mg/dl), Anandaraja formula (92.46 ± 32.37mg/dl), Puavillai formula (88.54 ± 32.78mg/dl) and Hattori formula (77.45 ± 30.31mg/dl). Conclusion: The study established Friedewald formula as the most suitable method for calculating LDL-C in the absence of direct LDL-C measurement facilities. A large sample size and multicentric study is warranted to confirm which formula is most suitable for measuring the LDL-C in the absence of direct LDL-C measurement.","PeriodicalId":93301,"journal":{"name":"International journal of biochemistry and biophysics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Calculated LDL-Cholesterol Using Various Formulae with Directly Measured LDL-Cholesterol: A Retrospective Study\",\"authors\":\"Kruthi B N, A. Nusrath\",\"doi\":\"10.13189/IJBB.2020.080301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Among the various risk factors for developing dyslipidemia and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), elevated Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) has been recognized as an independent and widely accepted risk factor for CVD. Therefore the objective of the study was to calculate LDL-C using various formulae and to compare the various formulae to calculate LDL-C with direct LDL-C measurement. Materials and methods: It was a retrospective observational study and study was conducted for a period of 3 Months. During this period, 400 consecutive serum samples were included, out of which 37 had TG value more than 400 mg/dl and were excluded from the study. Finally 363 samples data were included for analysis and data were obtained from the investigation ledger of clinical Biochemistry section and same sample Triglyceride, Total Cholesterol and High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol was used for calculating LDL-C using various formulae. Results: A total of 400 lipid profile reports were collected, of these, 37 reports had triglyceride level ≥ 400 mg/dl and hence 363 samples were included. There is no statistical difference between the direct LDL-C (131.64± 29.34mg/dl) and LDL-C level calculated by Friedewald formula (133.85±35.97mg/dl, p>0.05). There is a highly significant statistical difference between the direct LDL-C and the LDL-C level calculated using all other formulae (p=0.0001) Cordova and Cordova formula (88.06 ± 28.40mg/dl), Vujovic formula (80.44 ± 15.52mg/dl), Ahmadi formula (186.34 ± 63.26mg/dl), Anandaraja formula (92.46 ± 32.37mg/dl), Puavillai formula (88.54 ± 32.78mg/dl) and Hattori formula (77.45 ± 30.31mg/dl). Conclusion: The study established Friedewald formula as the most suitable method for calculating LDL-C in the absence of direct LDL-C measurement facilities. A large sample size and multicentric study is warranted to confirm which formula is most suitable for measuring the LDL-C in the absence of direct LDL-C measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93301,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of biochemistry and biophysics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of biochemistry and biophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13189/IJBB.2020.080301\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of biochemistry and biophysics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13189/IJBB.2020.080301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在发生血脂异常和心血管疾病(CVD)的各种危险因素中,低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)升高已被认为是CVD的一个独立且被广泛接受的危险因素。因此,本研究的目的是使用各种公式计算LDL-C,并比较各种公式计算LDL-C与直接测量LDL-C的比较。材料与方法:为回顾性观察性研究,研究时间为3个月。在此期间,连续纳入400份血清样本,其中37份TG值超过400 mg/dl,被排除在研究之外。最后纳入363个样本数据进行分析,数据来源于临床生物化学部门的调查分类账,同一样本的甘油三酯、总胆固醇和高密度脂蛋白胆固醇使用不同的公式计算LDL-C。结果:共收集了400份血脂报告,其中37份报告甘油三酯水平≥400 mg/dl,因此纳入了363份样本。直接LDL-C(131.64±29.34mg/dl)与Friedewald公式计算LDL-C(133.85±35.97mg/dl, p < 0.05)差异无统计学意义。Cordova和Cordova公式(88.06±28.40mg/dl)、Vujovic公式(80.44±15.52mg/dl)、Ahmadi公式(186.34±63.26mg/dl)、Anandaraja公式(92.46±32.37mg/dl)、Puavillai公式(88.54±32.78mg/dl)、Hattori公式(77.45±30.31mg/dl)计算的LDL-C水平与其他公式计算的LDL-C水平有极显著的统计学差异(p=0.0001)。结论:在没有直接LDL-C测量设备的情况下,Friedewald公式是最适合计算LDL-C的方法。在没有直接测量LDL-C的情况下,有必要进行大样本量和多中心研究,以确定哪种公式最适合测量LDL-C。
Comparison of Calculated LDL-Cholesterol Using Various Formulae with Directly Measured LDL-Cholesterol: A Retrospective Study
Background: Among the various risk factors for developing dyslipidemia and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), elevated Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) has been recognized as an independent and widely accepted risk factor for CVD. Therefore the objective of the study was to calculate LDL-C using various formulae and to compare the various formulae to calculate LDL-C with direct LDL-C measurement. Materials and methods: It was a retrospective observational study and study was conducted for a period of 3 Months. During this period, 400 consecutive serum samples were included, out of which 37 had TG value more than 400 mg/dl and were excluded from the study. Finally 363 samples data were included for analysis and data were obtained from the investigation ledger of clinical Biochemistry section and same sample Triglyceride, Total Cholesterol and High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol was used for calculating LDL-C using various formulae. Results: A total of 400 lipid profile reports were collected, of these, 37 reports had triglyceride level ≥ 400 mg/dl and hence 363 samples were included. There is no statistical difference between the direct LDL-C (131.64± 29.34mg/dl) and LDL-C level calculated by Friedewald formula (133.85±35.97mg/dl, p>0.05). There is a highly significant statistical difference between the direct LDL-C and the LDL-C level calculated using all other formulae (p=0.0001) Cordova and Cordova formula (88.06 ± 28.40mg/dl), Vujovic formula (80.44 ± 15.52mg/dl), Ahmadi formula (186.34 ± 63.26mg/dl), Anandaraja formula (92.46 ± 32.37mg/dl), Puavillai formula (88.54 ± 32.78mg/dl) and Hattori formula (77.45 ± 30.31mg/dl). Conclusion: The study established Friedewald formula as the most suitable method for calculating LDL-C in the absence of direct LDL-C measurement facilities. A large sample size and multicentric study is warranted to confirm which formula is most suitable for measuring the LDL-C in the absence of direct LDL-C measurement.