4.5 Article

3D echocardiographic reference ranges for normal left ventricular volumes and strain: results from the EACVI NORRE study

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jew284

关键词

adult echocardiography; three-dimensional echocardiography; left ventricular function; deformation imaging; reference values

资金

  1. GE Healthcare
  2. Philips Healthcare
  3. Federation Francaise de Cardiologie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To obtain the normal ranges for 3D echocardiography (3DE) measurement of left ventricular (LV) volumes, function, and strain from a large group of healthy volunteers. Methods and results A total of 440 (mean age: 45 +/- 13 years) out of the 734 healthy subjects enrolled at 22 collaborating institutions of the Normal Reference Ranges for Echocardiography (NORRE) study had good-quality 3DE data sets that have been analysed with a vendor-independent software package allowing homogeneous measurements regardless of the echocardiographic machine used to acquire the data sets. Upper limits of LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were larger in men (97 and 42 mL/m(2)) than in women (82 and 35 mL/m(2); P< 0.0001). Conversely, lower limits of LV ejection fraction were higher in women than in men (51% vs. 50%; P< 0.01). Similarly, all strain components were higher in women than in men. Lower range was -18.6% in men and -19.5% in women for 3D longitudinal strain, -27.0% and -27.6% for 3D circumferential strain, -33.2% and -34.4% for 3D tangential strain and 38.8% and 40.7% for 3D radial strain, respectively. LV volumes decreased with age in both genders (P< 0.0001), whereas LV ejection fraction increased with age only in men. Among 3DE LV strain components, the only one, which did not change with age was longitudinal strain. Conclusion The NORRE study provides applicable 3D echocardiographic reference ranges for LV function assessment. Our data highlight the importance of age- and gender-specific reference values for both LV volumes and strain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据