Background A worldwide study demonstrated that among all modifiable risk factors of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) to the abnormal cholesterol levels is attributable the highest risk of events. LDL-C is considered the most important lipoprotein risk factor. Some recent epidemiologic studies have suggested that non-HDL cholesterol (N-HDL-C) may be superior to LDL-C for identifying CVD risk. N-HDL-C is easily calculated from a lipid profile and represents all apolipoprotein B containing lipoproteins. Recent guidelines recommend LDL-C as a primary indicator and non-HDL-C as secondary. Moreover, cholesterol ratios are useful to stratification; the TC/HDL-C is associated with morbidity and mortality in the general population; in addition, several studies have stated that high triglycerides (TG) levels and low HDL-C are associated with increased risk and could function as atherogenic index. Methods 11399 samples were analyzed on Atellica Solution for the determination of Total Cholesterol (TC), D-LDL-C, HDL-C and TG. In the absence of clinical parameters, based on the desirable levels recommended by the guidelines, CVD risk was evaluated by assigning a cut-off of 100 and 130 mg/dL for D-LDL-C and N-HDL-C respectively Results Patients cohort mean (±SD) for CT, D-LDL, HDL, TG and N-HDL-C are 180 mg/dL (±43.2), 113 mg/dL (± 38.5), 51.7 mg/dL (±15.6), 116 mg/dL (±73.8), 128 mg/dL (±39.5) respectively. Of the examined patients, the 57.7% were outpatients, 21.8% of infectious diseases and 12.6% of the cardiovascular department. Data about D-LDL-C and N-HDL-C comparison, evaluated on discordant patients, are shown in table 1. Conclusions The data obtained from evaluation would seem to confirm hypothesis according to which non-HDL cholesterol would have a greater power in the identification of CVD risk because of cholesterol ratios are suggestive of increased risk for patients with an LDL-C<100 and N-LDL-C>130 mg/dL. Further studies assessing CVD risk, not only through laboratory data, are necessary to confirm this supposition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valaperta et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: