RESUMO
Background: Elevated serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration is a well-known atherogenic risk factor with a high predictive value for coronary heart disease. An important aspect of the assessment of coronary heart disease risk for a dyslipidemic subject is the estimation of serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C). There are many homogenous assays currently available for the estimation of serum LDL-C. Most clinical laboratories determine LDL-C (mg/dl) by Friedewald’s formula (FF), LD-=(TC)-HDL-C)-(TG/5), Modified Friedewald’s formula (MFF), LDL-C=(TC)-(HDL-C)-(TG/6), Recently Anandaraja and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C, AR-LDL-C=0.9 TC-(0.9 TG/5)-28.Methods: It is cross-sectional study. Lipid profile data was collected from known of CHD patients, who had come for lipid profile investigation to the Central Biochemistry laboratory of ACPM Medical College and hospital. LDL-C estimation was done by direct homogenous assay and also calculated using the Friedewald’s Formula, Modified Friedewald’s Formula and Anandaraja’s Formula for assessing and validity of the LDL cholesterol.Results: From the present study, The LDL-FF, MFW and AR are increased with levels of TGL > 200 mg/dl and decreased level of TC < 200 mg/dl seem to interfere with the estimation of Direct LDL cholesterolConclusions: Authors conclude that, LDL-C by direct method is most reliable and sensitive in CHD patients compare with FF, MFW, and ARF.
RESUMO
Background: Estimation of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is crucial in management of coronary artery disease patients. There are many homogenous assays currently available for the estimation of serum LDL-C. Most clinical laboratories determine LDL-C (mg/dl) by Friedewald’s formula (FF). Recently Anandaraja and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDLC. This formula needs to be evaluated before it is extensively applied in diagnosis. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained by direct homogenous assay for LDLC to those obtained by Friedewald’s and Anandaraja’s formulas with the assumption that the results obtained by direct assay are the most accurate. Materials and methods: We measured Lipid profile (TC, TG, HDL-C, D-LDL-C) by direct homogenous method in 715 fasting samples. Simultaneously Friedewald’s and Anandaraja’s formulas were also used for calculation of LDL-C (FF-LDL-C and AR-LDL-C, respectively). Results: The mean LDL-C levels were 117.78 ± 13.797, 115.51 ± 12.854 and 112.93 ± 11.671 mg/dl for D-LDL-C, FF-LDL-C and AR-LDL-C respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the results (P ˂ 0.001) obtained by calculation formulas compared to the measured LDL-C. There was underestimation of LDL-C by 2.27 mg/dl and 4.85 mg/dl by Friedewald’s and Sridevi V, Vinit Anand, Mahendrappa S.K. Comparison of Friedewald’s and Anandaraja’s formula with direct estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in Shivamogga population. IAIM, 2016; 3(7): 120-131. Page 121 Anandaraja’s formulas respectively. In this study, the Pearson’s correlation between FF-LDL-C and D-LDL-C was 0.881 and that between AR-LDL-C and D-LDL-C was 0.880. Bland–Altman graphs showed a definite agreement between mean and differences of the calculation formulas and direct LDL-C with 95% of values lying with in ±2 SD limits. Conclusion: The results of our study showed that FF is better in agreement with D-LDL-C than Anandaraja’s formula for estimation of LDL-C by calculation though both lead to its underestimation.