2021, Cilt 19, Sayı 1, Sayfa(lar) 022-031 |
|
Martin Hopkins and Friedewald Calculation with Direct LDL-C Measurement: Evaluation with RCV |
Erdem Çokluk1, Mehmet Ramazan ŞEKEROĞLU1, Fatıma Betül TUNCER1 M. Ramazan Akdemir2 |
1Sakarya Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi, Tibbi Biyokimya Anabilim Dali, Sakarya, Türkiye 2Sakarya Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi, Kardiyoloji Anabilim Dali, Sakarya, Türkiye |
Keywords: LDL Cholesterol; Martin / Hopkins Formula; Friedewald formula; Reference Change Value; Lipid parameters; Optimal test order frequency |
Objective: In the study, it was aimed to determine the harmony of LDL-C levels determined by
enzymatic(direct) and computational method, to have an idea about the optimal request frequency by
examining the significance of the percentage changes of repeated LDL-C measurements according to
the reference change value(RCV).
Materials and Methods: Results of a total of 179 individuals aged 18-65, whose lipid profiles were
analyzed twice in a year, were obtained from the laboratory information management system. The
relationship between the measured LDL-C levels and the LDL-C levels calculated by Martin/Hopkins and
Friedewald formulas was examined. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the results. In addition,
the percentage changes of repeated LDL-C results was compared with the calculated RCV were
evaluated.
Results: Both computational LDL-C levels were lower than direct measurement. Although the
correlation of direct and computational methods was found to be high, the mean of the differences was
found to be higher than the %RCV calculated for LDL in Blant Altman analysis. The change in the
repeated measurements of those with the first LDL-C result above 130mg/dL in direct measurement
and above 160mg/dL in the Fridewald calculation was significant compared to the RCV%.
Conclusion: While presenting the LDL-C result, we believe that the same method should be used in
monitoring LDL-C in order to avoid errors due to variations between methods. The effect of analytical
and biological variations on measurement results should also be taken into account while evaluating
the variation between results. Thus, unnecessary tests, misdiagnoses and treatments can be avoided.
|
|
|