Age and gender specific normal values of left ventricular mass, volume and function for gradient echo magnetic resonance imaging: a cross sectional study
Knowledge about age-specific normal values for left ventricular mass (LVM), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF) by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is of importance to differentiate between health and disease and to assess the severity of disease. The aims of the study were to determine age and gender specific normal reference values and to explore the normal physiological variation of these parameters from adolescence to late adulthood, in a cross sectional study.
Methods
Gradient echo CMR was performed at 1.5 T in 96 healthy volunteers (11–81 years, 50 male). Gender-specific analysis of parameters was undertaken in both absolute values and adjusted for body surface area (BSA).
Results
Age and gender specific normal ranges for LV volumes, mass and function are presented from the second through the eighth decade of life. LVM, ESV and EDV rose during adolescence and declined in adulthood. SV and EF decreased with age. Compared to adult females, adult males had higher BSA-adjusted values of EDV (p = 0.006) and ESV (p < 0.001), similar SV (p = 0.51) and lower EF (p = 0.014). No gender differences were seen in the youngest, 11–15 year, age range.
Conclusion
LV volumes, mass and function vary over a broad age range in healthy individuals. LV volumes and mass both rise in adolescence and decline with age. EF showed a rapid decline in adolescence compared to changes throughout adulthood. These findings demonstrate the need for age and gender specific normal ranges for clinical use.
Background
Fundamental structural and functional properties of the left ventricle including left ventricular mass (LVM), volumes, and function are often assessed in the clinical setting using two dimensional echocardiography. The clinical use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has increased lately and a consensus panel report has established clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance [1].
It is of great clinical importance to be able to differentiate between normal and abnormal findings, but this may often prove difficult if adequate normal values are unknown. The need for age and gender specific normal values with CMR is therefore growing. Several studies have defined CMR normal ranges of LV volumes and function in limited age ranges [2–8], and none of these have examined these parameters over a wide age range in healthy individuals. A recent study presented age and gender specific normal ranges for CMR at 1.5 T using a steady state free precession sequence [9]. However, at times, some centers still need to use gradient echo sequences in clinical assessment at 1.5 T.
The aim of the study was, therefore, to suggest clinically usable age and gender specific normal ranges for LV volumes and function using gradient echo CMR at 1.5 T for the second through the eighth decade of life. We also sought to explore, in a cross sectional study, the normal variation of LV volumes and function in strictly healthy subjects over a wide age range in order to examine the age variation of these parameters.
Methods
Study population and design
The study population consisted of 96 healthy volunteers prospectively recruited by advertisement from the local community (76 adults, age 21–81 and 20 children, age 11–15, all caucasian). No subjects were excluded because of poor image quality. All subjects had a normal electrocardiogram (ECG) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≤ 90 mmHg) [10] and had no history of systolic or diastolic hypertension. Subjects with previous or current cardiovascular, systemic, metabolic disease, body mass index ≥ 30, visually overt aortic or mitral valve regurgitation in long axis MR images, or treatment with medication (except oral contraceptives [n=5], hormone replacement therapy [n=5] or oral incontinence medication [n=1]) were excluded from the study. MR imaging was performed within four weeks after inclusion with image analysis undertaken by independent observers blinded to subject characteristics. The investigation protocol and procedures were approved by the Lund University research ethics committee (reference number LU 207-00). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to inclusion.
Blood pressure
SBP and DBP were obtained in the supine or seated position by auscultation using a brachial cuff.
MR imaging
All patients were imaged in the supine position using a 1.5 T system (Magnetom Vision; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with a 25 mT/m gradient system and a phased-array body coil. Standard scout images were used to locate the orthogonal planes of the heart. End-expiratory ECG triggered short-axis gradient echo cine loops were then acquired throughout the left ventricle from the base (atrioventricular valve plane) to the apex. Typical imaging parameters were TR = 100 ms, and echo sharing gave an effective phase interval of 50 ms, TE = 4.8 ms, slice thickness 10 mm, field of view 350–420 mm, matrix 126 × 256, flip angle 20°. The number of cardiac phases per acquisition was determined as the integer obtained from the RR interval divided by TR. Nine to twelve slices were required to completely cover the left ventricle, depending on heart size.
MR image analysis
i) Tracing of endocardial and epicardial contours
All measurements were undertaken manually without the aid of automated image analysis software. End-diastolic and end-systolic frames were identified according to ventricular blood pool area. Measurements of the left ventricular endocardial and epicardial areas (Scion Image Beta 4.0.2, Scion Imaging Corporation) in each image frame were performed in the short-axis view. At the base of the left ventricle, the aortic outflow tract below the valve was included in volume measurements. The free papillary muscles were included for LVM assessment, and excluded for left ventricular volume assessment [11]. In the basal region of the heart where the left atrium was seen, only the portion of the slice that could be identified as left ventricle was included for measurement (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Delineation of the left ventricular borders in the short axis plane in end-diastole and end-systole. Both the endocardial and epicardial borders were outlined manually for both ventricular volume and mass measurement (solid lines). Papillary muscle measurements were only included for mass measurements (dashed lines).
ii) Left ventricular mass and dimensions
The difference in area between the endocardial and epicardial contours multiplied by the slice thickness (10 mm) represented myocardial volume for a given slice. Total myocardial mass was obtained by calculating the sum of all myocardial slice volumes and multiplying by the myocardial specific gravity (1.05 g/cm3). End-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) were calculated as the endocardial volume at end-diastole and end-systole respectively. Stroke volume (SV) was calculated as the difference between EDV and ESV. Ejection fraction (EF) was calculated as SV divided by EDV. All parameters were divided by body surface area (BSA) to achieve values adjusted for body size (e.g. LVM/BSA for left ventricular mass adjusted for BSA). In addition, a subset of 20 subjects were analyzed by 2 readers blinded to each others results in order to examine interobserver variability. Intraobserver variability was assessed by one observer who performed repeated blinded measurements in the same 20 subjects one month later.
Statistical analysis
SPSS (version 16) was used for statistical calculations. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Values are expressed as mean ± SD. Unpaired Student's t test or ANOVA were used to test for significance between groups since both visual inspection and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed that all measures were adequately normally distributed. Intra- and interobserver variability were assessed as the mean difference of measurements ± SD and by the intraclass correlation coeffecient (ICC) employing a two-way mixed model [12]. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated as the SD of the difference between two measurements expressed as percent of their mean. The coeffiecient of repeatability (CR) was calculated as two times the SD of the difference in two measurements. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between two variables, and expressed as its square (R2). BSA was calculated using a previously described technique [13]. Curve estimation and the 95% prediction intervals of LVM, dimensions, and function were defined using commercial software (Matlab curve fitting toolbox, Matlab version R12, Mathworks). The most appropriate curve fitting algorithm for LVM, dimensions and functional measures was identified as the rational polynomial of the form P(x)/Q(x) where both numerator and denominator were at most of the second degree and which had the highest adjusted R2 and lowest root mean square (RMS) of the error [14]. The predicted lower, mean and upper limits for normal values of LV parameters in each decade were calculated as the average of the mean and 95% prediction interval of the predicted values for each whole year as given by the curve estimation model.
Results
Population description
Data from 94 of the 96 subjects have, in part, previously been published in a study of LVM and wall stress [14]. Table 1 displays the baseline characteristics for the current study population. Blood pressure was similar between genders and well within accepted normal limits [10].
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of the adult and adolescent study populations according to gender (mean ± SD).
Normal variation of left ventricular measures with age
Table 2 lists suggested age-specific reference values for LV mass, EDV, ESV, SV and EF as absolute values and adjusted for BSA for males and females, respectively.
Table 2
The predicted lower, mean and upper limits for normal left ventricular parameters in males and females of different ages.
LVM
(g)
LVM/BSA
(g/m2)
EDV
(ml)
EDV/BSA
(ml/m2)
ESV
(ml)
ESV/BSA
(ml/m2)
SV
(ml)
SV/BSA
(ml/m2)
EF
(%)
Age (y)
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
Lower
Mean
Upper
MALES
11–20
108
152
197
64
87
110
84
138
192
53
78
104
12
45
79
9
26
42
58
94
129
35
52
70
52
67
82
21–30
150
193
235
73
95
118
115
167
219
58
82
107
32
64
96
16
32
48
68
102
137
33
51
68
51
66
81
31–40
154
196
238
74
96
119
113
165
217
57
81
105
35
67
99
17
33
49
64
98
132
31
48
65
51
65
80
41–50
149
191
233
73
95
117
105
156
208
53
77
102
33
65
97
16
32
48
57
91
125
29
46
63
50
65
79
51–60
141
183
225
70
92
114
94
145
197
48
73
97
29
61
93
14
30
46
51
85
119
26
43
60
50
64
79
61–70
130
173
216
66
89
111
80
133
185
43
67
92
23
55
88
12
28
44
43
78
112
22
39
57
49
64
78
71–80
118
163
207
61
85
108
65
120
174
36
62
88
15
49
83
8
26
43
35
71
106
16
36
55
49
63
78
FEMALES
11–20
80
125
171
56
79
101
77
120
162
55
76
96
13
37
60
10
22
34
53
84
116
36
53
71
55
71
86
21–30
98
142
186
60
82
104
76
119
161
52
72
93
17
40
63
12
24
35
49
81
112
32
49
66
55
70
86
31–40
98
142
186
59
81
103
75
118
160
49
70
90
19
42
64
12
24
36
46
77
108
29
46
63
54
70
85
41–50
96
140
183
58
80
102
74
116
158
47
68
88
20
43
65
13
25
36
43
74
105
26
43
60
54
69
85
51–60
93
136
180
57
79
101
73
115
158
46
66
87
21
44
67
13
25
37
40
71
103
24
41
58
53
69
84
61–70
88
133
177
55
77
100
72
114
157
45
66
86
22
45
68
14
26
38
37
69
100
23
40
57
53
69
84
71–80
83
129
174
53
76
99
69
113
158
44
65
87
22
46
70
14
26
39
34
66
99
21
39
57
53
68
83
BSA = body surface area, EDV = end diastolic volume, EF = ejection fraction,
ESV = end systolic volume, LVM = left ventricular mass, SV = stroke volume.
i) Left ventricular mass
Information on the age dependence of LV mass and wall stress in the majority of this population have been published and discussed previously [14]. The current study, however, provides tabular values in order to ease the use of this information as reference values. Figure 2 and Figure 3 describe the changes in left ventricular mass with age.
Figure 2
The normal age variation in left ventricular parameters in males (left) and females (right). Solid lines represent rational polynomial curve fit and dashed lines the 95% prediction intervals of this fit. Reference values are listed in Table 2. LVM = left ventricular mass, BSA = body surface area, EDV = end-diastolic volume.
Figure 3
The normal age variation in left ventricular parameters in males (left) and females (right). Solid lines represent rational polynomial curve fit and dashed lines the 95% prediction intervals of this fit. Reference values are listed in Table 2. BSA = body surface area, ESV = end-systolic volume, SV = stroke volume, EF = ejection fraction.
ii) End-diastolic and End-systolic volume
Ventricular volumes varied markedly between males and females (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Notably, there was a rise in EDV and ESV during adolescence and early adulthood in males, with a decline thereafter, possibly reflecting the concurrent change of LVM with age. This was absent in females with a trend towards a decrease of EDV and EDV/BSA with age and increase of ESV and ESV/BSA with age. Ventricular volumes in the adolescent group were similar between males and females (EDV: 120 ± 29 ml vs. 114 ± 23 ml, p = 0.66; EDV/BSA: 76 ± 11 ml/m2 vs. 77 ± 11 ml/m2, p = 0.95; ESV: 35 ± 8 ml vs. 32 ± 11 ml, p = 0.48; ESV/BSA: 22 ± 4 ml/m2 vs. 21 ± 7 ml/m2, p = 0.65). However, differences between genders became apparent for all ventricular volumes in the adult group with higher values in the male group (EDV: 153 ± 30 ml vs. 118 ± 19 ml, p < 0.001; EDV/BSA: 76 ± 13 ml/m2 vs. 69 ± 9 ml/m2, p = 0.006; ESV: 63 ± 17 ml vs. 43 ± 11 ml, p < 0.001; ESV/BSA: 31 ± 8 ml/m2 vs. 25 ± 6 ml/m2, p < 0.001).
iii) Left ventricular stroke volume and ejection fraction
In general, both SV and EF demonstrated a decline with age (Figure 3). Although differences in SV and EF between males and females were present in the adult group (SV: 91 ± 19 ml vs. 75 ± 15 ml, p < 0.001; SV/BSA: 45 ± 9 ml/m2 vs. 44 ± 9 ml/m2, p = 0.51; EF: 0.59 ± 0.07 vs. 0.64 ± 0.08, p = 0.014), SV and EF were similar between genders in the adolescent group (SV: 85 ± 22 ml vs. 83 ± 16 ml, p = 0.82; SV/BSA: 54 ± 9 ml/m2 vs. 55 ± 7 ml/m2, p = 0.70; EF: 0.71 ± 0.04 vs. 0.73 ± 0.06, p = 0.36). Notably, left ventricular EF in the adolescent group was higher (Figure 3) compared to adult subjects (0.72 ± 0.05 vs. 0.61 ± 0.07, p < 0.001) with a decline in both males and females from ~70% to ~60% with age.
Normal ranges for left ventricular mass, volumes and function
All variables varied according to age group (ANOVA, p < 0.05) except for EDV/BSA (p = 0.13) and ESV/BSA (p = 0.06) in males, and EDV (p = 0.39), EDV/BSA (p = 0.15), ESV/BSA (p = 0.28), SV (p = 0.14) and LVM/BSA (p = 0.24) in females.
Intra- and interobserver variability
Data on intra- and interobserver variability are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Intra- and interobserver variability
EDV
ESV
SV
EF
LVM
Intraobserver variability
Mean difference ± SD, absolute
0 ± 4 ml
-1 ± 10 ml
1 ± 8 ml
1 ± 6%
1 ± 3 g
Mean difference ± SD, relative
1 ± 5%
-1 ± 5%
1 ± 6%
1 ± 4% of EF
1 ± 5%
Coefficient of variance
4%
10%
8%
6%
3%
Coefficient of repeatability
8 ml
20 ml
16 ml
12%
6 g
R2
0.96
0.87
0.85
0.47
0.97
Intra-class correlation coefficient
0.99
0.96
0.96
0.81
0.99
Interobserver variability
Mean difference ± SD, absolute
3 ± 4 ml
-5 ± 14 ml
8 ± 7 ml
4 ± 6%
1 ± 5 g
Mean difference ± SD, relative
5 ± 6%
-2 ± 6%
6 ± 6%
3 ± 4% of EF
2 ± 9%
Coefficient of variance
4%
12%
7%
7%
6%
Coefficient of repeatability
8 ml
28 ml
14 ml
12%
10 g
R2
0.96
0.85
0.82
0.44
0.91
Intra-class correlation coefficient
0.98
0.95
0.91
0.81
0.98
Discussion
This study suggests age and gender specific normal values for LV mass, volumes and function measured in a healthy population over a large age range using gradient echo CMR at 1.5 T.
One of the most important tasks in patient examination is to distinguish normal findings from those indicative of disease. Normal ranges for a given parameter encompassing 95% of the population constitute the mainstay of this procedure. With increasing use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, the need for age-specific ranges of LV mass, volumes and function for this modality is obvious. This is of specific importance in order to correctly exclude disease.
A) Left ventricular mass
The findings regarding left ventricular mass in the present study and its relation to earlier studies has been discussed earlier [14]. Other non-invasive techniques including three dimensional echocardiography [15, 16] and computerized tomography [17] have overcome many of the shortcomings of two dimensional echocardiography although no reference values for normal patients have been established in a large population.
B) Left ventricular volumes, stroke volume and ejection fractions
Six CMR studies [3–5, 7–9] have described overall values of EDV, ESV, SV, and EF, which are consistent with findings from other imaging modalities and are, in the corresponding age ranges, broadly consistent with the findings in this study, with one exception. Sandstede et al used a gradient echo sequence and reported as much as 20–30% lower values for LV mass and volumes. Those authors chose to only measure LV volumes and mass in short axis slices which contained more than 50% of the circumference of the LV wall in both end-diastole and end-systole. This approach does not take into account the long axis movement of the basal parts of the left ventricle [11], which in part may explain the lower values obtained in that study. Hudsmith et al, showed differences between subjects above and below the age of 35 [8], but continuous age-specific values of these parameters, however, have not been described using gradient echo CMR in populations that extend over the breadth of age as in the present study. We show that adult females had a slight progressive decrease in ESV with age, with a resulting slight progressive increase in EF, whereas Maceira et al [9], showed the opposite. BMI and blood pressure were similar for both populations, hence it is likely some other factor which contributes to the difference between the studies. The discrepancy is difficult to interpret, and one can only speculate as to what difference between the populations may explain this discrepancy.
The inotropy of the left ventricle has been shown to be related to growth hormone/IGF levels [18]. Although our study has not measured growth hormone levels, one might speculate that the higher EDV, SV and EF in younger subjects may possibly, in part, reflect the higher growth hormone levels within this age group. Alternatively, these higher values may be due to physical activity rather than hormones. However, we have previously published that self-reported physical activity increased with age in our population [14]. Thus, it is unclear exactly why these measures are larger in younger subjects.
Reproducibility of measurement
The reproducibility of CMR LV measures obtained in our study was consistent with previously reported studies of intra- and interobserver variability [19–21].
Limitations
Regurgitation in the aortic or mitral valve was only assessed visually in long axis CMR images, and this is a limitation. However, it is likely that this was sufficient to serve the purposes of this study in this population with otherwise unremarkable ECG, medical history and physical examination. The number of included subjects in each gender and decade is less than the minimally suggested n = 10 [21] for the size of a group needed to determine reference values. However, the suggestion of n = 10 is based on the use of the mean +/- 2SD of those subjects' measurements as a basis for calculating reference values. In contrast, we used a curve estimation model and its 95% prediction interval to determine our reference values. Using this method, the robustness of the reference values is based on data from the entire population and less susceptible to small numbers of subjects in individual decade groups. The normal values provided in this study are appropriate for studies undertaken using similar gradient echo sequences at 1.5 T. It has been shown that steady-state free precession based sequences may result in slightly lower LVM and greater LV volumes [7, 22, 23]. These differences are likely to be systematic in nature and do not alter the physiological significance of the age trends reported in the current study. Furthermore, the use of steady-state free precession based sequences at a field strength of 3 T is currently hampered by artifacts [24]. The presented normal values for gradient echo sequences at 1.5 T may thereby also be of value for assessing results from gradient echo cardiac imaging at 3 T.
Conclusion
This study suggests normal reference values for left ventricular mass, dimensions, and function in healthy humans from early adolescence to the eighth decade according to gender using gradient echo CMR at 1.5 T. LV volumes, mass and function vary over a broad age range in healthy individuals. LV volumes and mass both rise in adolescence and decline with age. EF showed a rapid decline in adolescence compared to changes throughout adulthood. These findings further demonstrate the need for age and gender specific normal ranges for clinical cardiac MR examinations.
Abbreviations
(BSA):
body surface area
(CMR):
cardiac magnetic resonance
(DBP):
diastolic blood pressure
(ECG):
electrocardiogram
(EDV):
end-diastolic volume
(EF):
ejection fraction
(ESV):
end-systolic volume
(ICC):
intraclass correlation coefficient
(LV):
left ventricle
(LVM):
left ventricular mass
(SBP):
systolic blood pressure
(SV):
stroke volume
(T):
Tesla
(TE):
time to echo
(TR):
time to repetition.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by research funding from the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, and Lund University Faculty of Medicine and the Region of Scania.
Authors’ Affiliations
(1)
Dept of Clinical Physiology, Lund University Hospital
Hees PS, Fleg JL, Lakatta EG, Shapiro EP: Left ventricular remodeling with age in normal men versus women: novel insights using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol. 2002, 90 (11): 1231-1236. 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02840-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Lorenz CH, Walker ES, Morgan VL, Klein SS, Graham TP: Normal human right and left ventricular mass, systolic function, and gender differences by cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 1999, 1 (1): 7-21. 10.3109/10976649909080829.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Marcus JT, DeWaal LK, Gotte MJ, Geest van der RJ, Heethaar RM, Van Rossum AC: MRI-derived left ventricular function parameters and mass in healthy young adults: relation with gender and body size. Int J Card Imaging. 1999, 15 (5): 411-419. 10.1023/A:1006268405585.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Sandstede J, Lipke C, Beer M, Hofmann S, Pabst T, Kenn W, Neubauer S, Hahn D: Age- and gender-specific differences in left and right ventricular cardiac function and mass determined by cine magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000, 10 (3): 438-442. 10.1007/s003300050072.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Salton CJ, Chuang ML, O'Donnell CJ, Kupka MJ, Larson MG, Kissinger KV, Edelman RR, Levy D, Manning WJ: Gender differences and normal left ventricular anatomy in an adult population free of hypertension. A cardiovascular magnetic resonance study of the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002, 39 (6): 1055-1060. 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01712-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Alfakih K, Plein S, Thiele H, Jones T, Ridgway JP, Sivananthan MU: Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady-state free precession imaging sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003, 17 (3): 323-329. 10.1002/jmri.10262.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Hudsmith LE, Petersen SE, Francis JM, Robson MD, Neubauer S: Normal human left and right ventricular and left atrial dimensions using steady state free precession magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005, 7 (5): 775-782. 10.1080/10976640500295516.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Maceira AM, Prasad SK, Khan M, Pennell DJ: Normalized left ventricular systolic and diastolic function by steady state free precession cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2006, 8 (3): 417-426. 10.1080/10976640600572889.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. Guidelines Subcommittee. J Hypertens. 1999, 17 (2): 151-183.Google Scholar
Pennell DJ: Ventricular volume and mass by CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002, 4 (4): 507-513. 10.1081/JCMR-120016389.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Mosteller RD: Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med. 1987, 317 (17): 1098-PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cain PA, Ahl R, Hedstrom E, Ugander M, Allansdotter-Johnsson A, Friberg P, Marild S, Arheden H: Physiological determinants of the variation in left ventricular mass from early adolescence to late adulthood in healthy subjects. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2007, 27 (4): 255-262. 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2007.00735.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Gopal AS, Keller AM, Shen Z, Sapin PM, Schroeder KM, King DL, King DL: Three-dimensional echocardiography: in vitro and in vivo validation of left ventricular mass and comparison with conventional echocardiographic methods. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994, 24 (2): 504-513.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Gopal AS, Schnellbaecher MJ, Shen Z, Boxt LM, Katz J, King DL: Freehand three-dimensional echocardiography for determination of left ventricular volume and mass in patients with abnormal ventricles: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1997, 10 (8): 853-861. 10.1016/S0894-7317(97)70045-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Wachspress JD, Clark NR, Untereker WJ, Kraushaar BT, Kurnik PB: Systolic and diastolic performance in normal human subjects as measured by ultrafast computed tomography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1988, 15 (4): 277-283. 10.1002/ccd.1810150414.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Bisi G, Podio V, Valetto MR, Broglio F, Bertuccio G, G DER, Boghen MF, Berti F, Muller EE, Ghigo E: Radionuclide angiocardiographic evaluation of the cardiovascular effects of recombinant human IGF-I in normal adults. Eur J Endocrinol. 1999, 140 (4): 322-327. 10.1530/eje.0.1400322.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Bottini PB, Carr AA, Prisant LM, Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Gottdiener JS: Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. Am J Hypertens. 1995, 8 (3): 221-228. 10.1016/0895-7061(94)00178-E.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Germain P, Roul G, Kastler B, Mossard JM, Bareiss P, Sacrez A: Inter-study variability in left ventricular mass measurement. Comparison between M-mode echography and MRI. Eur Heart J. 1992, 13 (8): 1011-1019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bellenger NG, Davies LC, Francis JM, Coats AJ, Pennell DJ: Reduction in sample size for studies of remodeling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2000, 2 (4): 271-278. 10.3109/10976640009148691.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Plein S, Bloomer TN, Ridgway JP, Jones TR, Bainbridge GJ, Sivananthan MU: Steady-state free precession magnetic resonance imaging of the heart: comparison with segmented k-space gradient-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001, 14 (3): 230-236. 10.1002/jmri.1178.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Thiele H, Nagel E, Paetsch I, Schnackenburg B, Bornstedt A, Kouwenhoven M, Wahl A, Schuler G, Fleck E: Functional cardiac MR imaging with steady-state free precession (SSFP) significantly improves endocardial border delineation without contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001, 14 (4): 362-367. 10.1002/jmri.1195.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Michaely HJ, Nael K, Schoenberg SO, Laub G, Reiser MF, Finn JP, Ruehm SG: Analysis of cardiac function–comparison between 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience. Invest Radiol. 2006, 41 (2): 133-140. 10.1097/01.rli.0000192023.96494.af.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
