Low density lipoprotein laboratory findings
|
Low Density Lipoprotein Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Case Studies |
|
Low density lipoprotein laboratory findings On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Low density lipoprotein laboratory findings |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Low density lipoprotein laboratory findings |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]
Overview
Laboratory Test
Chemical measures of lipid concentration have long been the most-used clinical measurement, not because they have the best correlation with individual outcome, but because these lab methods are less expensive and more widely available. However, there is increasing evidence and recognition of the value of more sophisticated measurements. Specifically, LDL particle number (concentration), and to a lesser extent size, have shown much tighter correlation with atherosclerotic progression and cardiovascular events than is obtained using chemical measures of total LDL concentration contained within the particles. LDL cholesterol concentration can be low, yet LDL particle number high and cardiovascular events rates are high. Alternatively, LDL cholesterol concentration can be relatively high, yet LDL particle number low and cardiovascular events are also low. If LDL particle concentration is tracked against event rates, many other statistical correlates of cardiovascular events, such as diabetes mellitus, obesity and smoking, lose much of their additive predictive power.
LDL Subtype Patterns
LDL particles actually vary in size and density, and studies have shown that a pattern that has more small dense LDL particles ("Pattern B") equates to a higher risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) than does a pattern with more of the larger and less dense LDL particles ("Pattern A"). This is because the smaller particles are more easily able to penetrate the endothelium. "Pattern I", meaning "intermediate", indicates that most LDL particles are very close in size to the normal gaps in the endothelium (26 nm).
The correspondence between Pattern B and CHD has been suggested by some in the medical community to be stronger than the correspondence between the LDL number measured in the standard lipid profile test. Tests to measure these LDL subtype patterns have been more expensive and not widely available, so the common lipid profile test has been used more commonly.
The lipid profile does not measure LDL level directly but instead estimates it via the Friedewald equation using levels of other cholesterol such as HDL:
In mg/dl: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – (0.2 × triglycerides)
In mmol/l: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – (0.45 × triglycerides)
There are limitations to this method, most notably that samples must be obtained after a 12 to 14 h fast and that LDL-C cannot be calculated if plasma triglyceride is >4.52 mmol/L (400 mg/dL). Even at LDC-L levels 2.5 to 4.5 mmol/L, this formula is considered to be inaccurate. If both total cholesterol and triglyceride levels are elevated then a modified formulat may be used
LDL-C = Total-C HDL-C (0.16 x TAG)
This formula provides an approximation with fair accuracy for most people, assuming the blood was drawn after fasting for about 14 hours or longer. (However, the concentration of LDL particles, and to a lesser extent their size, has far tighter correlation with clinical outcome than the content of cholesterol with the LDL particles, even if the LDL-C estimation is about correct.)
There has also been noted a correspondence between higher triglyceride levels and higher levels of smaller, denser LDL particles and alternately lower triglyceride levels and higher levels of the larger, less dense LDL.
However, cholesterol and lipid assays, as outlined above were never promoted because they worked the best to identify those more likely to have problems, but simply because they used to be far less expensive, by about 50 fold, than measured lipoprotein particle concentrations and subclass analysis. With continued research, decreasing cost, greater availability and wider acceptance of other "lipoprotein subclass analysis" assay methods, including NMR spectroscopy, research studies have continued to show a stronger correlation between human clinically obvious cardiovascular event and quantitatively measured particle concentrations.
References