Posted on 03/22/2023 12:27:47 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
A real-world, retrospective analysis by the Family Heart Foundation, a leading non-profit research and advocacy organization, found that high-risk Americans who do not maintain levels of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) recommended in the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guidelines, had a 44% higher rate of cardiovascular events compared to those who did achieve and maintained recommended LDL-C levels.
The study findings were based on data from the Family Heart Database of more than 300 million Americans.
"This real-world evaluation shows how important it is for people at high risk for cardiovascular events to get the care they need to reach guideline-recommended LDL-C levels and stay there over time," said Cat Davis Ahmed, vice president, Policy and Outreach, and co-author of the study.
The analysis compared high or very high-risk patients who maintained recommended LDL-C levels at least 70% of the time to those who did not and assessed annual cardiovascular event rates. The study included individuals who had at least 48 months of diagnosis, procedure, medication, and lab result data with at least three cholesterol-screening results. Patients were divided into either "AT GOAL" or "NOT AT GOAL" cohorts, with 14,755 in each after 1 to 1 propensity score matching.
Key findings showed:
- The annual rate of first cardiovascular events was 44.2% higher for the "NOT AT GOAL" group (2.2% and 1.5%, p < 0.0002).
- Total cardiovascular events (first and subsequent) were also 49% higher (p< 0.0002) in the "NOT AT GOAL" versus "AT GOAL" group (3,510 vs. 2,356 total events).
The Family Heart Database is comprised of real-world diagnostic, procedural, and prescription data from claims and/or laboratory information in the U.S. from 2012 to 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalxpress.com ...
High risk americans already have higher risk. LDL is part of high risk. But lowering LDL is not really the solution.
I thought LDL and overall was not a good indicator, and the ratio was a better indicator, but hommocysteine was the best.
NOPE.
Inflammation.
It would be nice if they said what the “goal” was...
YESSSS! RATIO is far more important.
My HDL is low but so is my LDL.
Will be 83 year old next month, no heart issues in spite of blood pressure 135/85 usually.
Heart issues are pretty rare if one exercises 150 minutes every week. Unless of course one is smoker, fat and have very high blood pressure.
I’m 84 and when I was 62, I was told that my cholesterol levels would kill me in a few years.
My RN wife and superb home chef/cook got me off the, then recommended high carb diets and focused on basically copying the Mediterranean diet.
Interestingly, I only recently tried extra virgin olive oil in place of butter on eggs and select veggies I always enjoyed with butter, and it tastes really good!
So we are using less butter, and I'm enjoying the new flavors.
Diet and exercise. Eat reasonably well and exercise daily or at least several times a week. Get under the care of a good doctor, get annual blood tests and follow his advice.
It can be a useful indicator.
What to do?
I'm not a physician and I don't make recommendations. However, I do read a lot.
First, folks should consider making certain that they do not have sleep apnea. Epidemiologists have shown a clear relationship with OSA and high cholesterol (and cardio disease).
Next, some suggest easing back on carbohydrates. Might help more with HDL.
Also, Vitamin K (1 and 2) plus d3 and Mg could be useful.
Exercise, hydration, don't smoke, all the usual advice.
Never take health advice from anyone online (including me). Do your own DD.
Me?
Total cholesterol 170, ldl 70, triglycerides (underrated in relative importance) 77, and hdl 65. I've never taken a statin and I eat meat and eggs daily.
You think that blood pressure is bad?
I have an odd situation. My heart calcium score is 2, but my LDL cholesterol is high, despite exercise (was an active fitness instruction until a year ago), and a decent (not perfect diet). The score was 0 three years ago, but I am 67 and my doctor said that it’s expected to go up a little as I age. She also said not to worry about the LDL rating because the calcium score was so low and I am not overweight. LDL problem is probably heriditary. Nothing I can do about it.
I mean the because the calcium score was so low, not the LDL.
LDL count is a measure of a person’s inborn APOE genes, nothing else.
CLDL particles are a marker of a person’s liver’s failure to produce healthy cholesterol. There is really no reason to classify CLDL particles as LDL particles but that’s where they are grouped. Real LDL particles have no bearing on health.
When a glycated liver fails to create healthy cholesterol particles it discards the lipoprotein shells into the bloodstream as CLDL particles. The liver refines ingested fats into acetone and other volatile hydrocarbons. When the glycated liver fails to create viable lipoprotein cholesterol shells the hydrocarbons are left circulating in the blood as triglycerides.
Triglyceride level and CLDL count are the only two meaningful cholesterol markers, and they have nothing to do with cholesterol or fat consumption. They have everything to do with fructose consumption.
lowest LDL-C group had a higher risk of all-cause mortality
Association between low density lipoprotein cholesterol and all-cause mortality: results from the NHANES 1999–2014
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01738-w
The association between low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and all-cause mortality has been examined in many studies. However, inconsistent results and limitations still exist. We used the 1999–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data with 19,034 people to assess the association between LDL-C level and all-cause mortality. All participants were followed up until 2015 except those younger than 18 years old, after excluding those who died within three years of follow-up, a total of 1619 deaths among 19,034 people were included in the analysis. In the age-adjusted model (model 1), it was found that the lowest LDL-C group had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.708 [1.432–2.037]) than LDL-C 100–129 mg/dL as a reference group. The crude-adjusted model (model 2) suggests that people with the lowest level of LDL-C had 1.600 (95% CI [1.325–1.932]) times the odds compared with the reference group, after adjusting for age, sex, race, marital status, education level, smoking status, body mass index (BMI). In the fully-adjusted model (model 3), people with the lowest level of LDL-C had 1.373 (95% CI [1.130–1.668]) times the odds compared with the reference group, after additionally adjusting for hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer based on model 2. The results from restricted cubic spine (RCS) curve showed that when the LDL-C concentration (130 mg/dL) was used as the reference, there is a U-shaped relationship between LDL-C level and all-cause mortality. In conclusion, we found that low level of LDL-C is associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality. The observed association persisted after adjusting for potential confounders. Further studies are warranted to determine the causal relationship between LDL-C level and all-cause mortality.
That is when I can avoid ready made frozen foods and restaurant meals. It is borderline hyper-tension. Sodium jacks it up to 145/90.
Yes, we have to decipher between the BULLSHIT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.