Precipitation methods for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement compared, and final evaluation under routine operating conditions of a method with a low sample-to-reagent ratio

54Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

We evaluated six precipitation methods for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-chol) determination: the heparin/Mn2+ precipitation reagent method (Hep), two variants of the phosphotungstic acid/Mg2+ method (Tung-L and Tung-B), the dextran sulfate 50 000/Mg2+ method (Dex), the PEG 6000 method (PEG), and the PEG 6000/dextran sulfate 15 000 (PEG/Dex) method. The Tung-B and PEG/Dex precipitation methods have a low sample/precipitation reagent volume ratio (<0.4). The Tung-B, Dex, PEG, and PEG/Dex methods gave similar values, averaging within 0.1 mmol/L of each other, showing that the precipitation selectivity of these methods is comparable. The precipitation efficiency of Tung-B and Peg/Dex, however, was superior. Ultrafiltration of the supernatants was needed only at triglyceride concentrations >16.4 mmol/L (undiluted sample) or >28.0 mmol/L (sample diluted twofold); however, ultrafiltration without dilution was the most accurate method. Results of Tung-B under routine conditions (33 technicians) agreed well with those of the PEG method for 406 normo- and hyperlipidemic plasma samples. By comparison with the HDL-chol method from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Tung-B method showed a total error of 10.6%, which fulfills the criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program for HDL-chol analysis. In conclusion, with motivated personnel, Tung-B is a reliable, cost-effective method for routine HDL-chol analysis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Demacker, P. N. M., Hessels, M., Toenhake-Dijkstra, H., & Baadenhuijsen, H. (1997). Precipitation methods for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement compared, and final evaluation under routine operating conditions of a method with a low sample-to-reagent ratio. Clinical Chemistry, 43(4), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/43.4.663

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free