Suppr超能文献

甘油三酯升高且患有糖尿病患者门诊随访中直接低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的描述性评估

Descriptive Evaluation in Outpatient Follow-Up of Direct LDL-C in Patients with Elevated Triglycerides and Diabetes.

作者信息

Bennett Monica, Buzzard Lyndsey N, Presnell Erica N, Ofei-Dodoo Samuel, Newell Bradley J

机构信息

Muscogee Creek Nation Department of Health, Okmulgee, Oklahoma.

Ascension Medical Group Via Christi, P.A., Wichita, Kansas.

出版信息

Kans J Med. 2024 Nov 15;17(6):136-138. doi: 10.17161/kjm.vol17.22327. eCollection 2024 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

An annual fasting lipid panel (FLP) is recommended for patients with diabetes, with more frequent testing advised during the escalation of cholesterol-lowering therapy. However, the calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) using the Friedewald equation becomes unreliable when triglycerides are ≥400 mg/dL. In such cases, providers must order a separate direct LDL-C assay to obtain accurate results. Failing to do so may lead to missed opportunities for therapy intensification. This study examined an institution's current practices for following up on invalid LDL-C results, especially considering the stringent LDL-C targets outlined in recent guidelines and consensus statements.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective chart review across 13 outpatient clinics within a single health system over five years. The study included patients aged 40-75 with diabetes who had at least one invalid LDL-C result. They assessed the frequency of ordering a direct LDL-C assay within seven days of an invalid LDL-C result.

RESULTS

Out of 1,364 unique invalid FLPs, 97 (7.1%) met the criteria for the primary outcome. The rate of therapy escalation was not numerically affected by whether a direct LDL-C was ordered or the provider type. However, patients without a direct LDL-C ordered within seven days showed a trend towards more frequent therapy escalation (16.2%, n = 25/154) compared to those with a direct LDL-C (14.9%, n = 23/154).

CONCLUSIONS

The current practice at this institution of manually ordering a direct LDL-C assay to verify invalid LDL-C results poses a risk of missing necessary guideline-directed therapeutic intensification. This process may be improved by implementing a reflex direct LDL-C assay.

摘要

引言

对于糖尿病患者,建议每年进行一次空腹血脂检查(FLP),在强化降胆固醇治疗期间建议更频繁地进行检测。然而,当甘油三酯≥400mg/dL时,使用Friedewald方程计算的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)变得不可靠。在这种情况下,医疗服务提供者必须单独订购直接LDL-C检测以获得准确结果。不这样做可能会导致错过强化治疗的机会。本研究调查了一个机构对无效LDL-C结果进行跟进的当前做法,尤其考虑到近期指南和共识声明中规定的严格LDL-C目标。

方法

作者对一个单一医疗系统内的13个门诊诊所进行了为期五年的回顾性病历审查。该研究纳入了年龄在40 - 75岁之间患有糖尿病且至少有一次无效LDL-C结果的患者。他们评估了在无效LDL-C结果出现后七天内订购直接LDL-C检测的频率。

结果

在1364份独特的无效FLP中,97份(7.1%)符合主要结果标准。直接LDL-C检测是否订购或医疗服务提供者类型在数值上对治疗强化率没有影响。然而,与进行直接LDL-C检测的患者(14.9%,n = 23/154)相比,在七天内未进行直接LDL-C检测的患者有更频繁进行治疗强化的趋势(16.2%,n = 25/154)。

结论

该机构目前手动订购直接LDL-C检测以验证无效LDL-C结果的做法存在错过必要的指南指导的治疗强化的风险。通过实施反射性直接LDL-C检测可能会改善这一过程。

相似文献

4
A more valid measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in diabetic patients.
Am J Med. 1997 Jan;102(1):48-53. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00375-0.
10

本文引用的文献

6
A Tale of Two Approaches.两种方法的故事。
Am J Clin Pathol. 2022 Mar 3;157(3):345-352. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqab153.
8
Measuring LDL-cholesterol: what is the best way to do it?测量 LDL-胆固醇:哪种方法最好?
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2020 Jul;35(4):405-411. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000740.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验