Suppr超能文献

比较 Friedewald、Martin 和 Sampson 公式估算极低水平低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的准确性。

Comparison of the accuracy of the Friedewald, Martin, and Sampson formulas to estimate very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

机构信息

Department of Endocrinology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Department of Endocrinology, Centro Hospitalar Tâmega e Sousa, Porto, Portugal.

出版信息

Endokrynol Pol. 2023;74(2):203-210. doi: 10.5603/EP.a2023.0025.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The Martin (MF) and Sampson (SF) formulas have shown greater accuracy for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL compared to the Friedewald formula (FF); however, some disagreement is maintained. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) are alternatives to assessing cardiovascular risk in patients with very low LDL-C. The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of FF, MF, and SF formulas to estimate LDL-C < 70 mg/dL vs. directly measured LDL-C (LDLd-C) and to compare non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels between the groups of patients with concordant vs. discordant LDL-C.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective clinical study with measurements of lipid profile and LDLd-C in 214 patients with triglycerides < 400 mg/dL. For each formula, the estimated LDL-C was compared with the LDLd-C, and the correlation, the median difference, and the discordance rate were evaluated. Non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels were compared between the groups with concordant and discordant LDL-C.

RESULTS

The estimated LDL-C was < 70 mg/dL in 130 (60.7%) patients by FF, 109 (50.9%) by MF, and 113 (52.8%) by SF. The strongest correlation was found between LDLd-C and Sampson estimated LDL-C (LDLs-C) (R2 = 0.778), followed by Friedewald-estimated LDL-C (LDLf-C) (R2 = 0.680) and Martin estimated LDL-C (LDLm-C) (R2 = 0.652). Estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL was lower than LDLd-C, with the largest median absolute difference (25-75th) of -15 (-19 to -10) with FF. For estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, the discordant rate was 43.8%, 38.1%, and 35.1%, reaching for 62.3%, 50.9%, and 50% when LDL-C < 55 mg/dL by FF, SF, and MF, respectively. Patients in the discordant group presented significantly higher levels of non-HDL-C and ApoB for all 3 formulas (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

FF was the most inaccurate formula to estimate very low LDL-C. Despite MF and SF showing better results, their frequency in underestimating LDL-C was still considerable. In patients with falsely low estimated LDL-C, apoB and non-HDL-C were significantly higher, reflecting its true high atherogenic burden.

摘要

简介

与弗莱维赫(Friedewald)公式(FF)相比,马丁(Martin)(MF)和桑普森(Sampson)(SF)公式在估算 LDL-C < 70mg/dL 时显示出更高的准确性;然而,仍存在一些分歧。非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(non-HDL-C)和载脂蛋白 B(ApoB)是评估 LDL-C 极低的患者心血管风险的替代方法。本研究旨在评估 FF、MF 和 SF 公式估计 LDL-C < 70mg/dL 与直接测量的 LDL-C(LDLd-C)之间的准确性,并比较 LDL-C 一致和不一致患者组之间的 non-HDL-C 和 Apo-B 水平。

材料和方法

这是一项前瞻性临床研究,对 214 例甘油三酯 < 400mg/dL 的患者进行了血脂谱和 LDLd-C 的测量。对于每个公式,将估算的 LDL-C 与 LDLd-C 进行比较,并评估相关性、中位数差异和不一致率。比较 LDL-C 一致和不一致的患者组之间的 non-HDL-C 和 Apo-B 水平。

结果

FF 组中 130 例(60.7%)、MF 组中 109 例(50.9%)和 SF 组中 113 例(52.8%)患者的估计 LDL-C < 70mg/dL。与 LDLd-C 的相关性最强的是 Sampson 估计的 LDL-C(LDLs-C)(R2 = 0.778),其次是 Friedewald 估计的 LDL-C(LDLf-C)(R2 = 0.680)和 Martin 估计的 LDL-C(LDLm-C)(R2 = 0.652)。估计的 LDL-C < 70mg/dL 低于 LDLd-C,FF 的中位数绝对差异(25-75 分位)最大,为-15(-19 至-10)。对于估计的 LDL-C < 70mg/dL,不一致率分别为 43.8%、38.1%和 35.1%,当 FF、SF 和 MF 时 LDL-C < 55mg/dL,不一致率分别为 62.3%、50.9%和 50%。在所有 3 种公式中,不一致组患者的非-HDL-C 和 ApoB 水平均显著升高(均 P < 0.001)。

结论

FF 是估计极低 LDL-C 最不准确的公式。尽管 MF 和 SF 显示出更好的结果,但它们低估 LDL-C 的频率仍然相当高。在 LDL-C 估计值较低的患者中,apoB 和 non-HDL-C 显著升高,反映出其真正的高致动脉粥样硬化负担。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验