Is evaluation of non-HDL-C better than calculated LDL-C in CAD patients? MMIMSR experiences

Objective: The present study aimed to establish a better marker for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: One hundred patients of CAD (aged 20–60 years) of both sex and patients of hypertension with symptoms of CAD were selected for the study.50 age and sex matched healthy controls were chosen for the present study. Serum total cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL-C were estimated in Simens Dimensions RxL. LDL-C, VLDL-C were calculated by Friedwald Formula while non-HDL-C was calculated by subtracting HDL-C level from total cholesterol level. The comparison of non-HDL-C and friedwald calculated LDL-C was made in terms of independent‘t’ test, serum TG levels (TG ≤ 200 mg/dl and TG > 200 mg/dl) and area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results & conclusion: The non-HDL-C levels (mean ± S.D) were higher in both test and control groups to that of the levels of friedwald calculated LDL-C. The area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was significantly higher for non-HDL-C than for friedwald calculated LDL-C. The predictive value of non-HDL-C and friedwald calculated LDL-C were also compared in group A (serum TG ≤ 200 mg/dl) and group B (serum TG > 200 mg/dl). Non-HDL-C levels showed a significant difference in both the groups while the results were non-significant to that of friedwald calculated LDL. Thus, non-HDL-C is much specific and sensitive parameter for assessment of CAD risk. Moreover, non-HDL-C levels can also be done in non-fasting state with accuracy, thereby, it is patient friendly parameter. Therefore, the authors strongly suggest the incorporation of non-HDL-C in routine lipid profile panel.