Table 6 Comparison between studies with CMR-derived normal reference values
Study (Author, Journal Year) | Sample Size (n =) | Age (years) | Ethnicity | % Female representation (male:female) | Contouring Method | Mean LVEDV indexed to BSA (ml/m2) | Mean LVEF (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current study, Luu et al. 2021 | 3206 | 35–75 | Multi-ethnic | 65% (1126:2080) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV mass | Female: 66 Male: 74 | Female: 65 Male: 62 |
Petersen et al. JCMR 2017 | 800 | 45–74 | All Caucasians | 54% (368:432) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV volume | Female: 74 Male: 85 | Female: 61 Male: 58 |
Lei et al., JMRI 2017 | 120 | 23–83 | All Han Chinese | 50% (60:60) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV volume | Female: 68.7 Male: 76.5 | Female: 67.1 Male: 64.6 |
Le et al., JCMR 2016 | 180 | 20–69 | All Singaporean Chinese | 49% (91:89) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV mass | Female: 71 Male: 79 | Female: 62 Male: 58 |
Yeon et al., JMRI 2015 | 852 | 38–88a | Most Caucasians | 60% (512:340) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV volume | Female: 62 Male: 71 | Female: 60.6 Male: 58.6 |
Natori et al., AJR 2006 | 800 | 45–84 | Multi-ethnic | 50% (400:400) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV volume | Female: 64.5 Male: 73.9 | Female:71.8 Male: 67.2 |
Maceira et al., JCMR 2006 | 120 | 20–80 | Not mentioned | 50% (60:60) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV mass | Female: 75 Male: 80 | Female: 67 Male: 67 |
Hudsmith et al., JCMR 2005 | 108 | 21–68 | Not mentioned | 42% (63:45) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV mass | Female: 78 Male: 82 | Female: 69 Male: 69 |
Alfakih et al., JMRI 2003 | 60 | 20–65 | Not mentioned | 50% (30:30) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV mass | Female: 77.7 Male: 82.3 | Female: 64.0 Male: 64.2 |
Salton et al., JACC 2002 | 142 | 38–72 | Not mentioned | 56% (63:79) | Inclusion of papillary muscle in LV volume | Female: 49.8 Male: 57.6 | Female: 70 Male: 69 |