Skip to main content
 
Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Stanford Health Care

Prognostic Value of Fasting Versus Nonfasting Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Long-Term Mortality: Insight From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III).

Prognostic Value of Fasting Versus Nonfasting Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Long-Term Mortality: Insight From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III). Circulation Doran, B., Guo, Y., Xu, J., Weintraub, H., Mora, S., Maron, D. J., Bangalore, S. 2014; 130 (7): 546-553

Abstract

National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain.Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (=8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34).Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.

View details for DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010001

View details for PubMedID 25015340