Our goals in the study were to (1) quantify the discordance in LDL-C levels between equations (the Friedewald, Sampson, and Martin/Hopkins equations) and compare them with direct LDL-C (dLDL-C); and (2) explore the proportion of misclassified patients by calculated LDL-C using these three different equations.

A total of 30,349 consecutive patients with angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease (CAD) were prospectively enrolled. Concordance was defined as if the LDL-C was <1.8 mmol/L with each pairwise comparison of LDL-C equations. Estimated LDL-C that fell into the same category as dLDL-C at the following levels: <1.4, 1.4 to 1.7, 1.8 to 2.5, 2.6 to 2.9, and ≥3.0 mmol/L was considered to have been correctly categorized.

The Martin/Hopkins and Sampson equation demonstrated a greater connection with direct LDL-C at all levels compared to the Friedewald equation. Based on an LDL-C threshold of 1.8 mmol/L, the concordance was 96.3% (Sampson vs. Martin/Hopkins), 95.0% (Friedewald vs. Sampson), and 91.4% (Friedewald vs. Martin/Hopkins), respectively. The Sampson and Martin/Hopkins equation’s concordance is superior to that of the other combinations. The concordance proportion across the three equations (consistently estimating the LDL-C as <1.8 mmol/L) was 91.4% for all patients. This proportion fell to 82.4% in those with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L). With an accurate classification rate of 73.6%, the Martin/Hopkins equation outperformed the Sampson equation (69.5%) and the Friedewald equation (59.3%) by a wide margin at the following LDL-C levels: <1.4, 1.4 to 1.7, 1.8 to 2.5, 2.6 to 2.9, and ≥3.0 mmol/L.

Comparing it to the validated Martin/Hopkins equation, the Friedewald equation produced the lowest levels of LDL-C, followed by the Sampson equation. In the classification of LDL-C, the Martin/Hopkins equation has also been shown to be more accurate. There is a significant difference between the equations and the direct measurement method, which may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment.