Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 7;9(10):342.
doi: 10.3390/jcdd9100342.

Comparison of Estimated LDL Cholesterol Equations with Direct Measurement in Patients with Angiographically Confirmed Coronary Artery Disease

Boqun Shi  1   2   3 , Hao-Yu Wang  1   2   3 , Dong Yin  1   2   3 , Chenggang Zhu  1   2   3 , Lei Feng  1   2   3 , Hongjian Wang  1   2   3 , Lei Jia  1   2   3 , Rui Fu  1   2   3 , Chenxi Song  1   2   3 , Zhou Zhou  3   4 , Yahui Lin  3   4 , Weihua Song  1   2   3 , Ke-Fei Dou  1   2   3
Affiliations

Comparison of Estimated LDL Cholesterol Equations with Direct Measurement in Patients with Angiographically Confirmed Coronary Artery Disease

Boqun Shi et al. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. .

Abstract

Background and aims: Our goals in the study were to (1) quantify the discordance in LDL-C levels between equations (the Friedewald, Sampson, and Martin/Hopkins equations) and compare them with direct LDL-C (dLDL-C); and (2) explore the proportion of misclassified patients by calculated LDL-C using these three different equations. Methods: A total of 30,349 consecutive patients with angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease (CAD) were prospectively enrolled. Concordance was defined as if the LDL-C was <1.8 mmol/L with each pairwise comparison of LDL-C equations. Estimated LDL-C that fell into the same category as dLDL-C at the following levels: <1.4, 1.4 to 1.7, 1.8 to 2.5, 2.6 to 2.9, and ≥3.0 mmol/L was considered to have been correctly categorized. Results: The concordance was 96.3% (Sampson vs. Martin/Hopkins), 95.0% (Friedewald vs. Sampson), and 91.4% (Friedewald vs. Martin/Hopkins), respectively. This proportion fell to 82.4% in those with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L). With an accurate classification rate of 73.6%, the Martin/Hopkins equation outperformed the Sampson equation (69.5%) and the Friedewald equation (59.3%) by a wide margin. Conclusions: Comparing it to the validated Martin/Hopkins equation, the Friedewald equation produced the lowest levels of LDL-C, followed by the Sampson equation. In the classification of LDL-C, the Martin/Hopkins equation has also been shown to be more accurate. There is a significant difference between the equations and the direct measurement method, which may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment.

Keywords: LDL-C.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors state no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Direct LDL-C and LDL-C equation comparison. (A) Friedewald LDL-C vs. Sampson LDL-C. (B) Friedewald LDL-C vs. Martin/Hopkins LDL-C. (C) Martin/Hopkins LDL-C vs. Sampson LDL-C. (D) Direct LDL-C vs. Friedewald LDL-C. (E) Direct LDL-C vs. Martin/Hopkins LDL-C. (F) Direct LDL-C vs. Sampson LDL-C. LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Figure 2
Figure 2
LDL-C equation concordance and discordance at 1.8 mmol/L as the LDL-C cut point. (A) Concordance and discordance in all patients. (B) Concordance and discordance in patients with TG ≥ 1.7mmol/L. (C) Concordance and discordance in patients with diabetes. LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentage of patients that were incorrectly classified by direction and estimated LDL-C subgroup. (A) Overall. (B) LDL-C subgroup 1: <1.4 mmol/L. (C) LDL-C subgroup 2: 1.4–1.7 mmol/L. (D) LDL-C subgroup 3: 1.8–2.5 mmol/L. (E) LDL-C subgroup 4: 2.6–2.9 mmol/L. (F) LDL-C subgroup 5: ≥3.0 mmol/L. LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Residual error plots for LDL-C by various equations. (A) Direct LDL-C vs. Friedewald LDL-C. (B) Direct LDL-C vs. Martin/Hopkins LDL-C. (C) Direct LDL-C vs. Sampson LDL-C. LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. TG = triglyceride.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mach F., Baigent C., Catapano A.L., Koskinas K.C., Casula M., Badimon L., Chapman M.J., De Backer G.G., Delgado V., Ference B.A., et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur. Heart J. 2020;41:111–188. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grundy S.M., Stone N.J., Bailey A.L., Beam C., Birtcher K.K., Blumenthal R.S., Braun L.T., de Ferranti S., Faiella-Tommasino J., Forman D.E., et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019;73:e285–e350. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Delalla O.F., Elliott H.A., Gofman J.W. Ultracentrifugal Studies of High Density Serum Lipoproteins in Clinically Healthy Adults. Am. J. Physiol. Leg. Content. 1954;179:333–337. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1954.179.2.333. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friedewald W.T., Levy R.I., Fredrickson D.S. Estimation of the Concentration of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Plasma, Without Use of the Preparative Ultracentrifuge. Clin. Chem. 1972;18:499–502. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/18.6.499. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Joint Committee for Developing Chinese guidelines on Prevention and Treatment of Dyslipidemia in Adults 2016 Chinese guideline for the management of dyslipidemia in adults. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2016;44:833–853. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3758.2016.10.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources