Avaliação da dosagem direta do colesterol-LDL em amostras de sangue de 10.664 pacientes em comparação com o uso da fórmula de Friedewald

Córdova, Caio Maurício Mendes de; Schneider, Carlos Rudi; Juttel, Iara Deise; Cordova, Maurício Mendes de

doi:10.1590/s0066-782x2004001800006

Cited by 45 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were shown by Charuruks and Milintagas [19], who indicated the direct measurement of LDL-c when TG ≥ 200 mg/dL because they found that the direct method was more precise and accurate than FF, even for TG levels between 200 and 399 mg/dL. One Brazilian study showed a similar conclusion for FF use [20]. Nevertheless, these findings do not align with those of our study, in which the LDL-c value was estimated with precision by the FF for any value of TG < 400 mg/dL.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Validation of the Friedewald Formula in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, the Friedewald formula (FF) is the main method for evaluating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c). Recently, many limitations have emerged regarding its use, including patients with triglyceride levels ≥400 mg/dL, diabetes mellitus, and kidney or hepatic chronic diseases. We analyzed the use of the FF in patients with metabolic syndrome. We selected patients with known metabolic syndrome that fulfilled the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Final Report and excluded patients with triglyceride levels ≥400 mg/dL and chronic liver and/or kidney disease. Using direct assays, we measured total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL-c. Then, LDL-c was estimated using the FF and compared with the LDL-c by direct assay. The sample size was 135 patients. Using the FF, the mean LDL-c value was 124.4 ± 42.1 mg/dL; it was 125.1 ± 38.5 mg/dL by direct assay. The correlation coefficient between these two methods was 0.89, with statistical significance (P value < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the patients with triglyceride levels >150 mg/dL (P = 0.618). In conclusion, FF is a good method for estimating LDL-c in patients with metabolic syndrome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Validation of the Friedewald Formula in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the formula, the concentration of very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) is estimated as 20% of total TG concentrations [4]. However, the particles found in patients with hypertriglyceridemia are usually a heterogeneous mixture of chylomicron remnants, VLDL, and VLDL remnants [19]. It is well known that the ratio of TG to cholesterol (TG/cholesterol) varies a lot within these particles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A modified formula for calculating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Friedewald formula (FF) is useful for calculating serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values, but has a remarkable deviation and limitation especially in hypertriglyceridemia. We modify the formula which is now more suitable for LDL-C calculation.Methods2180 cases were classified into three groups according to their TG concentrations (A: < 200 mg/dl, n = 1220; B: 200-400 mg/dl, n = 480; C: 400-1000 mg/dl, n = 480). The concentrations of LDL-C were measured or estimated by 1) a direct measurement (DM); 2) the FF; and 3) our modified Friedewald formula (MFF): LDL-C (mg/dl) = Non-HDL-C × 90% - TG × 10%.ResultsLinear regression showed a significant correlation (P < 0.001) between the measured and calculated LDL-C values. Bland-Altman plots indicated that the methods (DM/MFF) were in better agreement than those (DM/FF). The LDL-C/Non-HDL-C ratio in FF calculated values was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that in MFF or DM values, while no significant difference between MFF and DM was found. In Group A and Group B, 4.26% and 14.79% of the MFF calculated values had more than 20% deviation from those measured by DM. These percentages were significantly lower than those calculated by FF, where 7.30% and 25.63% were observed, respectively (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001). The MFF calculated values were all positive even in Group C.ConclusionsCompared with the FF calculation, serum LDL-C values estimated by our modified formula are closer to those measured by a direct assay. The modification significantly diminishes the interference caused by hypertriglyceridemia.

show abstract

“…At present, plasma apolipoprotein A-I and B levels have been described as better predictors of atherosclerotic diseases than lipid and lipoprotein concentrations 6,13 ; it has also been suggested that the apo B/apo A-I ratio represents a superior parameter for predicting cardiovascular risk as compared with other lipid ratios, such as total cholesterol/HDLc, LDLc/HDLc and non-HDL cholesterol/HDLc 14,15 . [20][21][22] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%