PURPOSE: To obtain normal values of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO) and LV mass, in relation to gender, weight (W), length (L) and body surface area (BSA). METHODS: Sixty-one healthy volunteers (32 male, 22.4 +/- 2.2 years) were examined, weight was 70.9 +/- 12.2 kg, length was 1.78 +/- 0.09 m, BSA was 1.88 +/- 0.19 m2. Segmented k-space breathhold cine MRI was used to obtain a stack of parallel short-axis images, from which LV volumes and end-diastolic mass were derived by slice summation. Four different body size indices were studied: W, L, L2 and BSA. RESULTS: After indexing for L, L2 and BSA, the gender differences in all LV parameters are still persisting. After indexing for W, gender differences persist for EDV and EDM, but are no longer observed for SV and CO. Separate regression analyses for males and females were performed. EDV, SV, CO and EDM correlated significantly with each body size index, both in males and in females. L or BSA were in general better predictors for LV parameters than W. Linear regression equations of EDV (ml) vs. L(m) were for males: EDV = 275 x L - 359 and for females: EDV = 190 x L - 215. Equations of SV(ml) vs. L were for males: SV = 186 x L - 237 and for females: SV = 118 x L - 121. Equations of LV mass(g) vs. L were for males: Mass = 175 x L - 179 and for females: Mass = 65.8 x L - 10.9. CONCLUSION: Most gender differences in LV parameters remain even after correction for body size indices. Normal reference values for LV parameters are given in relation to body size indices, by calculating regression coefficients separately for males and females. These normal values serve to obtain more accurate reference values for a patient with given gender, weight and length, and thus to improve the differentiation between normal and abnormal LV parameters.
PURPOSE: To obtain normal values of left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO) and LV mass, in relation to gender, weight (W), length (L) and body surface area (BSA). METHODS: Sixty-one healthy volunteers (32 male, 22.4 +/- 2.2 years) were examined, weight was 70.9 +/- 12.2 kg, length was 1.78 +/- 0.09 m, BSA was 1.88 +/- 0.19 m2. Segmented k-space breathhold cine MRI was used to obtain a stack of parallel short-axis images, from which LV volumes and end-diastolic mass were derived by slice summation. Four different body size indices were studied: W, L, L2 and BSA. RESULTS: After indexing for L, L2 and BSA, the gender differences in all LV parameters are still persisting. After indexing for W, gender differences persist for EDV and EDM, but are no longer observed for SV and CO. Separate regression analyses for males and females were performed. EDV, SV, CO and EDM correlated significantly with each body size index, both in males and in females. L or BSA were in general better predictors for LV parameters than W. Linear regression equations of EDV (ml) vs. L(m) were for males: EDV = 275 x L - 359 and for females: EDV = 190 x L - 215. Equations of SV(ml) vs. L were for males: SV = 186 x L - 237 and for females: SV = 118 x L - 121. Equations of LV mass(g) vs. L were for males: Mass = 175 x L - 179 and for females: Mass = 65.8 x L - 10.9. CONCLUSION: Most gender differences in LV parameters remain even after correction for body size indices. Normal reference values for LV parameters are given in relation to body size indices, by calculating regression coefficients separately for males and females. These normal values serve to obtain more accurate reference values for a patient with given gender, weight and length, and thus to improve the differentiation between normal and abnormal LV parameters.
Authors: H Sakuma; N Fujita; T K Foo; G R Caputo; S J Nelson; J Hartiala; A Shimakawa; C B Higgins Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P M Pattynama; H J Lamb; E A Van der Velde; R J Van der Geest; E E Van der Wall; A De Roos Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1995 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: S M Nidorf; M H Picard; M O Triulzi; J D Thomas; J Newell; M E King; A E Weyman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W J Rogers; E P Shapiro; J L Weiss; M B Buchalter; F E Rademakers; M L Weisfeldt; E A Zerhouni Journal: Circulation Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Stork; O Franzen; H Ruschewski; C Detter; K Müllerleile; P M Bansmann; G Adam; G K Lund Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sarah Clay; Khaled Alfakih; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Timothy Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sinvananthan Journal: MAGMA Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Nadine Kawel; Evrim B Turkbey; J Jeffrey Carr; John Eng; Antoinette S Gomes; W Gregory Hundley; Craig Johnson; Sofia C Masri; Martin R Prince; Rob J van der Geest; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Susan B Yeon; Carol J Salton; Philimon Gona; Michael L Chuang; Susan J Blease; Yuchi Han; Connie W Tsao; Peter G Danias; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stefan Wolf; Alexander Riess; Julia F Landscheidt; Christianto B Lumenta; Patrick Friederich; Ludwig Schürer Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 9.097