Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady‐state free precession imaging sequences

Abstract

Purpose:To establish normal ranges of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dimensions as determined by the current pulse sequences in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods:Sixty normal subjects (30 male and 30 female; age range, 20 -65) were examined; both turbo gradient echo (TGE) and steady-state free precession (SSFP) pulse sequences were used to obtain contiguous short-axis cine data sets from the ventricular apex to the base of the heart. The LV and RV volumes and LV mass were calculated by modified Simpson's rule.Results: Normal ranges were established and indexed to both body surface area (BSA) and height. There were statistically significant differences in the measurements between the genders and between TGE and SSFP pulse sequences. For TGE the LV end-diastolic volume (EDV)/BSA (mL/m 2 ) in males was 74.4 Ϯ 14.6 and in females was 70.9 Ϯ 11.7, while in SSFP in males it was 82.3 Ϯ 14.7 and in females it was 77.7 Ϯ 10.8. For the TGE the LV mass/ BSA (g/m 2 ) in males was 77.8 Ϯ 9.1 and in females it was 61.5 Ϯ 7.5, while in SSFP in males it was 64.7 Ϯ 9.3 and in females it was 52.0 Ϯ 7.4. For TGE the RV EDV/BSA (mL/ m 2 ) in males was 78.4 Ϯ 14.0 and in females it was 67.5 Ϯ 12.7, while in SSFP in males it was 86.2 Ϯ 14.1 and in females it was 75.2 Ϯ 13.8. Conclusion:We have provided normal ranges that are gender specific as well as data that can be used for age-specific normal ranges for both SSFP and TGE pulse sequences. CARDIAC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI) has been shown to be an accurate and reproducible tool for the estimation of both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) measurements (1-8). Currently, the two pulse sequences, which are in common clinical and research use for acquisition of volumes data sets, are segmented k-space turbo gradient echo (TGE) and the more recent steady-state free precession (SSFP) technique. The latter sequence has been validated in animal studies (9). TGE acquisition has been compared to previously validated sequences with excellent correlation (7).Lorenz et al published the first normal range for cardiac MRI LV mass (g) and volumes, utilizing a conventional cine gradient echo sequence performed with free breathing (10). Another normal range for TGE with breath holding was developed by Marcus et al (11). There is a difference between the values obtained by the two groups. Lorenz et al report a mean LV mass of 178 Ϯ 31 for men (N ϭ 47) and of 125 Ϯ 26 for women (N ϭ 28), while Marcus et al report a mean LV mass of 142 Ϯ 20 for men (N ϭ 32) and 102 Ϯ 15.9 for women (N ϭ 29). These differences remained after indexation to body surface area (BSA). Therefore, there is a need for further work to establish a normal range for the TGE pulse sequence, which remains in common use. Furthermore, because of improved delineation of the endocardial borders and faster acquisition time, it is anticipated that SSFP pulse sequences will be the most frequently used technique in the future. Comparative values for ventricular volumes based...

3T MRI investigation of cardiac left ventricular structure and function in a UK population: The tayside screening for the prevention of cardiac events (TASCFORCE) study

“…The greatest differences were noted for female volunteers, where the mean EDV and LVM parameters were 12 ml and 11 g lower, respectively, at 3.0T when compared to the previous pooled 1.5T data reported by Kawel‐Boehm et al11 If the individual articles that contribute to this published range are scrutinized more closely, the best agreement to our 3.0T mean EDV (120 ml) is found in the work by Maciera et al,3 who obtained a mean EDV of 126 ml for their cohort of female volunteers in the 50–59 years age decade at 1.5T. Similarly, the closest agreement to our mean LVM (87 g) is reported in the work by Alfakih et al,1 who obtained a mean LVM of 88.1 g for their cohort of female volunteers in the 40–65 years age range at 1.5T. In other words, although some discrepancy exists between the pooled 1.5T data, there are individual contributions that agree quite closely with our findings at 3.0T.…”

“…These patterns of change over time are most similar to those reported by Hudsmith et al2 at 1.5T, where they compared cohorts of volunteers in groups with age stratification <35 years and >35 years. Similar patterns of change over time are also presented by Alfakih et al1 and Macieira et al3 at 1.5T.…”

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Is Associated With Increased Infarct Size and Decreased Myocardial Salvage in Patients With ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

“…Previous studies have reported different values for the upper limit of normal LV mass 13, 28, 29. To address these differences, CMR data on LV mass and concentricity were obtained from 44 healthy subjects (22 men and 22 women).…”

Normal biventricular function, volumes, and mass in children aged 8 to 17 years

“…The interventricular septum was included in the left ventricular mass. In the basal slices, the following criteria for inclusion in the ventricular volume were used: 1) when the cavity was only partially surrounded by ventricular myocardium in end-systole or end-diastole, only the part up to the junction with atrial tissue was included in the ventricular volume (6); 2) when the pulmonary or aortic valve was visible in the basal slice, contours were drawn up to the junction with the semilunar valves (6,13). In the apical area, major trabeculations and the moderator band were included in the left or right ventricular mass (13).…”

“…Compared to the previously used spoiled gradient-echo sequences, SSFP provides better bloodmyocardial contrast, higher image quality, and faster acquisition times (4). Better blood-myocardial contrast in SSFP imaging results in statistically significantly higher end-diastolic volumes (EDV) and end-systolic volumes (ESV), lower mass, and lower ejection fraction (EF) (5,6). Therefore, SSFP-derived data cannot be compared to data obtained with spoiled gradient echo sequences.…”