Logo image
Back
Fasting Versus Nonfasting and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Accuracy
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Fasting Versus Nonfasting and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Accuracy

Vasanth Sathiyakumar, Jihwan Park, Asieh Golozar, Mariana Lazo, Renato Quispe, Eliseo Guallar, Roger S. Blumenthal, Steven R. Jones and Seth S. Martin
Circulation (New York, N.Y.), v 137(1), pp 10-19
02 Jan 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030677
PMID: 29038168
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030677View
Published, Version of Record (VoR) Open

Abstract

Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Cardiovascular System & Cardiology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Peripheral Vascular Disease Science & Technology
BACKGROUND: Recent recommendations favoring nonfasting lipid assessment may affect low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) estimation. The novel method of LDL-C estimation (LDL-C-N) uses a flexible approach to derive patient-specific ratios of triglycerides to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This adaptability may confer an accuracy advantage in nonfasting patients over the fixed approach of the classic Friedewald method (LDL-C-F). METHODS: We used a US cross-sectional sample of 1 545 634 patients (959 153 fasting >= 10-12 hours; 586 481 nonfasting) from the second harvest of the Very Large Database of Lipids study to assess for the first time the impact of fasting status on novel LDL-C accuracy. Rapid ultracentrifugation was used to directly measure LDL-C content (LDL-C-D). Accuracy was defined as the percentage of LDL-C D falling within an estimated LDL-C (LDL-C-N or LDL-C-F) category by clinical cut points. For low estimated LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), we evaluated accuracy by triglyceride levels. The magnitude of absolute and percent differences between LDL-C-D and estimated LDL-C (LDL-C-N or LDL-C-F) was stratified by LDL-C and triglyceride categories. RESULTS: In both fasting and nonfasting samples, accuracy was higher with the novel method across all clinical LDL-C categories (range, 87%-94%) compared with the Friedewald estimation (range, 71%-93%; P= 0.001). With LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, nonfasting LDL-C-N accuracy (92%) was superior to LDL-C-F accuracy (71%; P< 0.001). In this LDL-C range, 19% of fasting and 30% of nonfasting patients had differences >= 10 mg/dL between LDL-C-F and LDL-C-D, whereas only 2% and 3% of patients, respectively, had similar differences with novel estimation. Accuracy of LDL-C < 70 mg/dL further decreased as triglycerides increased, particularly for Friedewald estimation (range, 37%-96%) versus the novel method (range, 82%-94%). With triglycerides of 200 to 399 mg/dL in nonfasting patients, LDL-C N < 70 mg/dL accuracy (82%) was superior to LDL-C-F (37%; P< 0.001). In this triglyceride range, 73% of fasting and 81% of nonfasting patients had >= 10 mg/dL differences between LDL-C-F and LDL-C-D compared with 25% and 20% of patients, respectively, with LDL-C-N. CONCLUSIONS: Novel adaptable LDL-C estimation performs better in nonfasting samples than the fixed Friedewald estimation, with a particular accuracy advantage in settings of low LDL-C and high triglycerides. In addition to stimulating further study, these results may have immediate relevance for guideline committees, laboratory leadership, clinicians, and patients.

Metrics

11 Record Views
96 citations in Web of Science
98 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Web of Science research areas
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Peripheral Vascular Disease
Logo image