Measuring Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: Comparison of Direct Measurement by HiSens Reagents and
2015
Background: Directly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol (DLDLC) has been reported to be more accu rate than calculated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (CLDLC) using the Friedewald equation. However, some limitations of DLDLC have been reported. In this study, we evaluated differences between CLDLC and DLDLC mea sured using HiSens reagents. Methods: Data were collected from 582 persons undergoing routine physical examinations at a general hospital. LDLC measurements were made directly or estimated using the Friedewald formula, and were classified according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. The relationship between these differences and other clinically relevant factors, such as triglyceride (TG) levels, were examined using multi ple logistic regression analysis. Results: The DLDLC and CLDLC were strongly correlated according to simple linear regression analysis (r = 0.917, P 0.5). Conclusion: Unlike other studies, DLDLC was significantly lower than CLDLC and the large differences in LDLC concentrations were not dependent on TG concentration. Our work suggests that verification of DLDLC accuracy is needed and differences in LDLC measurements should be accounted for in making clinical decisions.
Keywords:
- Low-density lipoprotein
- Logistic regression
- National Cholesterol Education Program
- Statistics
- Simple linear regression
- Analytical chemistry
- Cholesterol
- Triglyceride
- Chemistry
- low density lipoprotein cholesterol
- Internal medicine
- general hospital
- Gastroenterology
- Diabetes mellitus
- Biochemistry
- simple linear regression analysis
- Correction
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
15
References
0
Citations
NaN
KQI