• Users Online: 576
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 213-221

A Comparison between Eight Formulas for the Estimation of Plasma Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in the Saudi Arabian Population


1 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University; Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Dena Abdulbadea Nuwaylati
Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 21959
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/joah.joah_48_22

Rights and Permissions

CONTEXT: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the classical target in cardiovascular (CV) disease management and is usually estimated by Friedewald's formula. However, this formula may over- or underestimate LDL-C levels. AIMS: Our aim is to compare eight LDL-C-estimating formulas to the direct LDL-C measurement and validate their use in the Saudi population. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A blood sample of fasting 669 Saudi subjects was tested for lipid profiles in King Abdulaziz University Hospital Laboratory, from which directly measured LDL-C was obtained. LDL-C was then estimated from eight different formulas: Friedewald's, Cordova's, Hata's, Puavilai's, Chen's, Ahmadi's, Hattori's, and Vujovic's, which were all compared to direct LDL-C. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Mean and standard deviation, paired t-test, and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean differences between the direct LDL-C and Hattori and Chen's LDL-C were 0.03 and 0.08 mmol/L, respectively; P < 0.001, while the mean difference observed with Hata, Friedewald, Puavilai, and Vujovic's formulas were higher in comparison: 0.15, 0.24, 0.29, and 0.33 mmol/L, respectively, P < 0.001. Ahmadi and Cordova's LDL-C were estimated to be 0.60 and 0.64 mmol/L more than direct LDL-C levels, respectively, which showed the highest discordance with direct LDL-C, P < 0.001. At a triglyceride (TG) level of <4.5 mmol/L, Hattori also had the best agreement with direct LDL-C, with a mean difference of 0.04 mmol/L, and with TG >4.5 mmol/L, their mean difference was 0.21 mmol/L. All estimated LDL-C strongly correlated with direct LDL-C, except for Ahmadi's. CONCLUSIONS: Hattori's LDL-C had the best agreement with the direct LDL-C, and across all TG levels. However, we recommend directly measuring LDL-C in those with high CV risk.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed252    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded34    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal