Translation: Non-HDL Cholesterol Shows Improved Accuracy for Cardiovascular Risk Score Classification Compared to Direct or Calculated LDL Cholesterol in a Dyslipidemic Population.
- Author:
Hendrick E VAN DEVENTER
1
;
W Greg MILLER
;
Gary L MYERS
;
Ikunosuke SAKURABAYASHI
;
Lorin M BACHMANN
;
Samuel P CAUDILL
;
Andrzej DZIEKONSKI
;
Selvin EDWARDS
;
Mary M KIMBERLY
;
William J KORZUN
;
Elizabeth T LEARY
;
Katsuyuki NAKAJIMA
;
Masakazu NAKAMURA
;
Robert D SHAMBUREK
;
George W VETROVEC
;
G Russell WARNICK
;
Alan T REMALEY
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Humans; Indicators and Reagents; Triglycerides
- From:Laboratory Medicine Online 2011;1(3):121-131
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: Weexamined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides > or =2.26 mmol/L (> or =200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.
