Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Normative ranges of biventricular volumes and function in healthy term newborns

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance volume 25, Article number: 26 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used in newborns with congenital heart disease. However, reporting on ventricular volumes and mass is hindered by an absence of normative data in this population.

Design/methods

Healthy term (37–41 weeks gestation) newborns underwent non-sedated, free-breathing CMR within the first week of life using the ‘feed and wrap’ technique. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF) were calculated for both left ventricle (LV) and right ventricle (RV). Papillary muscles were separately contoured and included in the myocardial volume. Myocardial mass was calculated by multiplying myocardial volume by 1.05 g/ml. All data were indexed to weight and body surface area (BSA). Inter-observer variability (IOV) was performed on data from 10 randomly chosen infants.

Results

Twenty healthy newborns (65% male) with a mean (SD) birth weight of 3.54 (0.46) kg and BSA of 0.23 (0.02) m2 were included. Normative LV parameters were indexed EDV 39.0 (4.1) ml/m2, ESV 14.5 (2.5) ml/m2 and ejection fraction (EF) 63.2 (3.4)%. Normative RV indexed EDV, ESV and EF were 47.4 (4.5) ml/m2, 22.6 (2.9) ml/m2 and 52.5 (3.3)% respectively. Mean LV and RV indexed mass were 26.4 (2.8) g/m2 and 12.5 (2.0) g/m2, respectively. There was no difference in ventricular volumes by gender. IOV was excellent with an intra-class coefficient > 0.95 except for RV mass (0.94).

Conclusion

This study provides normative data on LV and RV parameters in healthy newborns, providing a novel resource for comparison with newborns with structural and functional heart disease.

Introduction

Neonatal cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is being increasingly utilized for assessment of structural and functional cardiac conditions. CMR has the unique ability to provide a detailed assessment of cardiac anatomy, non-invasive hemodynamics, volumetric data and tissue characterization, without the use of potentially harmful ionizing radiation [1]. In addition, there is a growing body of literature reporting performance of neonatal CMR without anesthesia using the feed-and-wrap technique, suggesting its increasing applicability [2].

In neonates and infants, accurate measurement of biventricular volumes are needed for preoperative assessment and surgical planning for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) associated with borderline left or right heart structures [3]. While transthoracic echocardiography is often used for initial estimation of ventricular size in neonates, experimental animal studies comparing echocardiography and CMR-derived ventricular volumes have shown CMR to be a more precise method of chamber quantification [4]. Further, measurement of right ventricular (RV) volumes by echocardiography is difficult given the complex tripartite morphology of the chamber with literature now supporting the use of CMR as the preferred method [5, 6]. CMR also has a role in neonates with other heart diseases including tissue characterization of intracardiac masses and pulmonary hypertension [7, 8]. Indeed, CMR is the current gold standard for measurement of biventricular volumes and mass.

The interpretation of CMR in the neonatal population is limited by the inability to compare ventricular volumes and mass to those in normal neonates. There has been a recent momentum in pediatrics to establish CMR datasets for healthy infants and children [9,10,11,12], although these studies have minimal inclusion of neonates. Recent work by our group involved performance of CMR in neonates to assess the impact of maternal obesity on cardiac size [13]. However, current literature lacks normative CMR data in a dedicated newborn population. Given this knowledge gap, our study reports normal values of biventricular volumes and mass in a healthy neonatal population using non-sedated free-breathing CMR imaging obtained in the first few days of life.

Methods

Study population

Healthy term (37–41 weeks gestation) newborns underwent non-sedated, free-breathing CMR within the first week of life using the ‘feed-and-wrap’ technique. Newborns were a subset of infants born to mothers with a normal body mass index (BMI) in a larger multisite study examining the impact of maternal obesity on newborn outcomes [13, 14]. Neonates born to mothers with a normal BMI [lean cohort, (20–25 kg/m2)] in early pregnancy were included to avoid potential effects of maternal obesity. This study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee and written informed parental consent was obtained. CMR was performed on infants while inpatients on the postnatal ward. No infant had required admission to the intensive care unit.

Imaging technique

All infants were scanned using acoustic ear protection, pulse oximetry, vector electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring and without sedation or anesthesia, as described previously [15]. Scans were performed on 3T CMR scanner (Achieva, Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands) using an 8-channel pediatric body receive coil. An ECG-gated 2-dimensional balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) short axis 10 slice stack optimized for neonatal CMR (acquired in-plane resolution = 1 × 1 mm, slice thickness = 4 mm, TR/TE = 3.8/1.9 ms, flip angle = 35°, signal averages = 4) was placed over the heart, aligned with the mitral valve using previously acquired pilot scans. Four chamber and two chamber cines were additionally included as reference images.

Post-processing

Images were transferred to the post-processing Circle Cardiovascular Imaging (cvi42) software (version 5.10.3, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Calgary, Canada). End-diastolic and end-systolic phases were determined on the cine bSSFP short-axis stack. Manual contouring of biventricular endocardial borders was performed. Four chamber and two chamber cine images were used for cross-referencing particularly in basal slices for accurate determination of the atrioventricular valvar plane through the cardiac cycle. Left ventricular (LV) papillary muscles were separately contoured and included in the LV mass (LVM) calculation and excluded from the ventricular volume. RV trabeculations and papillary muscles were not contoured separately and were included in RV blood pool. A smooth endocardial border was drawn for the RV volumes. Epicardial borders for both ventricles were traced in diastole to measure the myocardial volume. The interventricular septum, including the septal band was included as part of the LVM. Myocardial volume was multiplied by the factor 1.05 g/ml to obtain the myocardial mass. (Fig. 1) Stroke volume (SV) was calculated as the difference between end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV). Ejection fraction (EF) was calculated as the SV divided by EDV × 100. LV and RV volumes and mass (RVM) were described as absolute values as well as indexed to weight and body surface area (BSA). RV and LV cardiac outputs were measured by multiplying respective SV by heart rate.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mulitslice view of short-axis stack in end-diastole with contours. Myocardial borders were defined by performing a detailed manual tracing of the epicardium and endocardium. Left ventricular (LV) papillary muscles were separately contoured and included in the LV myocardial mass (LVM)

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Data are described using mean (standard deviation) for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. The volumetric variables were assessed for normal distribution using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The association of gestational age to ventricular volumes was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The primary data analysis was performed using Excel 2019 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA). The comparative analysis was performed using Stata (version 15.1, Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).

Interobserver variability

Ten randomly selected neonates’ CMR data were chosen for interobserver variability assessment. Post-processing was performed on each of these studies by a second independent observer using the same methodology as stated above. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Stata (version 15.1; Stata Corporation).

Results

A total of 20 healthy newborns (65% male) were included in the study. All neonates were born at term with a mean gestational age of 39.9 (1.2) weeks. Average maternal age was 34.2 (5.3) years. Mean age at the time of the scan in hours was 31.8 (14.0) hours (range of 9–56). One newborn did not have height included in the dataset precluding measurement of BSA and indexed values. Demographic details of the cohort are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic variables of the population (n = 20)
Full size table

Ventricular parameters

The average LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was 9.0 (1.2) ml. The mean LVEDV indexed by BSA (LVEDVI) was 39.0 (4.1) ml/m2. The average absolute and BSA indexed LV end-systolic volume (LVESV, LVESVI) was 3.3 (0.5) ml and 14.5 (2.5) ml/m2, respectively. LV ejection fraction (LVEF) measured 63.2 (3.4)%. The LVM was 6.0 (0.7) g with an LVM index (LVMI) of 26.4 (2.8) g/m2. LVM, LVEDV and LVESV were also indexed to body weight as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Left ventricular (LV) parameters
Full size table

Similarly, the mean absolute RV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV) of the cohort was 11.0 (1.7) ml. The RVEDV indexed by BSA (RVEDVI) was 47.4 (4.5) ml/m2. The RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was 52.5 (3.3)%. The average RV end-systolic volume (RVESV) was 5.2 (0.9) ml with an RVEDV indexed to BSA (RVEDVI) of 22.6 (2.9) ml/m2. Absolute RVM and BSA indexed mass (RVMI) were 2.9 (0.5) g and 12.5 (2.0) g/m2, respectively. In addition, the ratio of the RVEDV to the LVEDV was 1.2 (0.2). RV parameters including values indexed to birth weight are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Right ventricular (RV) parameters
Full size table

Biventricular volumes and mass by sex

There were 13 male and 7 female infants. Volumetric data for LV and RV are described for males and females separately in Table 4.

Table 4 Ventricular volumes and mass by sex
Full size table

Relationship to gestational age

There was a weak relationship between LVESVI and gestational age (r = -0.51, p = 0.03). There was no correlation between gestational age and any other variables of biventricular volumes or mass. (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Interobserver variability

Post-processing was repeated on ten randomly selected newborns by a second independent observer. The intraclass correlation (ICC) estimate between individual measurements and average measurement were calculated. LVEDV, LVESV, RVEDV, RVESV and LVM had excellent inter-observer reproducibility, while that for RVM was slightly lower (Table 5).

Table 5 Inter-observer variability testing using intraclass coefficient (ICC) for 10 randomly selected patients with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
Full size table

Discussion

Neonatal CMR has historically been challenging primarily due to the need for anesthesia and image optimization. With numerous recent studies reporting refined imaging techniques in neonates without sedation, [15,16,17] and with the application of CMR data in assessment of patients with CHD, the performance of CMR in this population has increased. There remains, however, a lack of normative data for neonates, although this is available for children and young adults [10]. We believe the present study to be among the first to describe normative data on biventricular chamber volumes, myocardial masses and cardiac output in a cohort of term newborns. This data will enable quantification of z-scores in newborns with structural and functional cardiac lesions.

Importance of CMR in accuracy of volumetric data

Echocardiography is usually the first line method for assessment of LV volumes and mass. Three dimensional echocardiography is superior to 2-dimensional echocardiography in this regard, although there are wide limits of agreement and it underestimates ventricular volumes when compared to CMR in adult patients [18]. LVM is best estimated by CMR [19]. In an animal model study, bSSFP imaging by CMR correlated well with ventricular mass obtained on autopsy [20]. A correlation between CMR derived LVM and directly measured LVM was also found in studies on human explanted hearts [21]. Furthermore, the RV has a complex geometric tripartite shape that limits its measurement by 2-dimensional echocardiography [5]. CMR is also highly accurate and reproducible in assessment of RV volumes and mass in animal and human studies [22, 23]. Given the superior endocardial definition, lack of radiation and excellent reproducibility associated with CMR, it is currently the gold standard for assessment of biventricular volumes and mass [6, 24].

Indications for utilization of CMR in neonatal population

Neonatal CMR is being increasingly performed for both CHD and acquired cardiac conditions [8]. Neonates with left sided obstructive lesions such as hypoplastic left heart syndrome, aortic stenosis or Shone’s complex, require accurate determination of LV volumes and mass. Similarly, estimation of RV volumes is important for surgical planning and prognostication in neonates with borderline RV size such as those with unbalanced atrioventricular canal defects and pulmonary atresia. These infants can undergo a univentricular or biventricular surgical procedure. The decision to utilize the hypoplastic ventricle as an independent pumping chamber often involves a complex model that includes measured ventricular volumes. Previously, echocardiographic LV volume was one of the determinants of success of biventricular repair in infants with borderline left-sided structures [25]. However, because these patients often have altered LV geometry and septal configuration 2-dimensional assessment is limited. More recently, CMR-derived ventricular volumes have been included as key determinants of surgical decision making in this population [3]. An indexed LVEDV cutoff of 20 ml/m2 or more is used in some centers as favoring biventricular surgery [3, 26]. However, the lack of available CMR normative data as noted by Nathan et al. precludes comparative assessment [26]. Using our dataset, an indexed LVEDV of 20 ml/m2 would measure as 4.6 standard deviations below the mean, indicative of moderate LV hypoplasia. In a large multicenter study of patients with pulmonary atresia and intact ventricular septum, a higher baseline RV end-diastolic area measured by 2-dimensional echocardiography was associated with biventricular repair [27]. CMR is likely to play a role in these patients in the future to provide accurate RV measurements. Indications for neonatal CMR, other than CHD include assessment of intracardiac masses, myocardial tissue characterization and pulmonary hypertension [7, 8]. By providing biventricular volumes and mass in healthy newborns, our study provides a reference for neonatal cardiac assessment.

Image acquisition and analysis

Similar to other centers, neonatal CMR was safely performed without sedation in our study using multi-signal average breathing and a feed-and-wrap technique [2]. Additionally, image-based shimming and frequency stabilization as previously described, were utilized for optimal image quality [15]. Most pediatric studies perform ventriculography using bSSFP short-axis stacks, but others utilize axial stacks [28, 29]. Further, there is heterogeneity in the methodology used for contouring volumes. Some reports identify inclusion of papillary muscles in LV volumes, while others recommend contouring the papillary muscles separately, with inclusion in the LVM calculation [9]. Based on the method used, volumetric data will significantly differ [30]. Our study had excellent interobserver variability for LV parameters but a higher variability for RV parameters. RVM (ICC = 0.94, 95% CI − 0.76–0.98) had the least agreement amongst observers. A lower agreement for RV parameters has similarly been observed by others [9].

Comparison to literature

Our study showed no association between gestational age and CMR data, although all neonates were born at term within a narrow timeframe (39–41 weeks gestation) which may preclude detection of a significant correlation. LV volumes by CMR in a preterm neonatal population has been evaluated [31]. There have been several efforts in the last decade to assess ventricular volumes and mass in healthy children. A recent study by van der Ven et al. pooled data from healthy children across three European centers to establish normal CMR values in children [12]. The median indexed LVEDV (males, 48 ml/m2; females, 51 ml/m2) and RVEDV (males, 47 ml/m2; females, 54 ml/m2) in the youngest cohort reported appear to be higher than the values we observed. However, the cohort grouped children between 0 and 6 years of age (n = 12), likely accounting for the difference. Similarly, a recent large prospective pediatric study was conducted by Olivieri et al. to assess ventricular volumes and mass in healthy children and infants [11]. The study enrolled infants ranging from 21 days to 9 months (n = 23) which reflects a different age group when compared to our study. This further highlights the paucity of normative data in newborns.

Limitations

Despite being the largest CMR study performed on healthy term newborns, the study has a relatively small sample size (n = 20) that limits detailed analysis. Of note, the study was performed on a 3T scanner. Available adult studies have shown good reproducibility in the volumetric data obtained at 1.5 and 3T, but the lack of supportive pediatric literature potentially limits the generalizability of our data [32]. All neonates included were deemed healthy based on normal newborn clinical examination. However, given that echocardiography was not performed, small shunt lesions (eg. patent ductus arteriosus, patent foramen ovale) or other congenital defects that could affect ventricular volumes and were identified on physical examination, cannot be excluded. Using biventricular SV ratios to calculate Qp:Qs, the mean RV/LV SV of the population is 1.02:1 (range of 0.87: 1.2), supportive of a lack of a significant shunt. It should be noted that all subjects were scanned prior to discharge from hospital and were less than three days of age at the time of the scan. Therefore, these data do not account for normal growth that takes place subsequently in the neonatal period and does not completely represent the neonatal age-group (0–28 days). Further, the use of free-breathing and averaged segmented imaging, particularly in newborns at high heart rates can have an impact on the image quality and measurements. Due to the small sample size and narrow BSA range, allometric normalization, as described in other normative datasets, was not performed [33]. Given that pre-term neonates have distinct clinical and hemodynamic conditions, direct extrapolation of these data to preterm infants is not recommended. Normal values of biventricular volumes and masses for a predominantly pre-term neonatal population have been previously described [17]. Importantly, the cohort described in this study consisted of neonates born to mothers with a normal BMI in early pregnancy and excluded those whose mothers had higher BMI. This could impact on the generalizability of the data given the prevalence of obesity. As our earlier report showed the differences in CMR parameters between infants of lean and obese women, we chose to present data only on the neonates in the “lean group” [13]. Lastly, significant practice variations exist regarding the view (axial versus short-axis) used for ventriculography and the methodology used for post-processing [29]. The methods that we used are in accordance with standards used at our institution. If these data are used as a reference for comparison, we recommend that similar protocols are followed.

Conclusion

Using non-sedated, free-breathing CMR, we report the largest study of normative data on biventricular volumes and masses in a healthy neonatal population, obtained in the first few days of life. The variables in this study were highly reproducible with good inter-observer agreement. These normative data provide a reference for comparison of ventricular volumes and masses in newborns with structural and functional heart disease.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

BSA:

Body surface area

bSSFP:

Balanced steady state free precession

CHD:

Congenital heart disease

CMR:

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

EDV:

End-diastolic volume

EF:

Ejection fraction

ESV:

End-systolic volume

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

IOV:

Interobserver variability

LV:

Left ventricle/left ventricular

LVCO:

Left ventricular cardiac output

LVCI:

Left ventricular cardiac index

LVEDV:

Left ventricular end-diastolic volume

LVEDVI:

Left ventricular end-diastolic volume indexed to BSA

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

LVESV:

Left ventricular end-systolic volume

LVESVI:

Left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed to BSA

LVM:

Left ventricular mass

LVMI:

Left ventricular mass indexed to BSA

LVSV:

Left ventricular stroke volume

RV:

Right ventricle/right ventricular

RVCO:

Right ventricular cardiac output

RVCI:

Right ventricular cardiac index

RVEDV:

Right ventricular end-diastolic volume

RVEDVI:

Right ventricular end-diastolic volume indexed to BSA

RVEF:

Right ventricular ejection fraction

RVESV:

Right ventricular end-systolic volume

RVESVI:

Right ventricular end-systolic volume indexed to BSA

RVM:

Right ventricular mass

RVMI:

Right ventricular mass indexed to BSA

RVSV:

Right ventricular stroke volume

SD:

Standard deviation

SV:

Stroke volume

References

  1. Kellenberger CJ, Yoo SJ, Valsangiacomo Büchel ER. Cardiovascular MR imaging in neonates and infants with congenital heart disease. Radiographics. 2007;27(1):5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Windram J, Grosse-Wortmann L, Shariat M, Greer ML, Crawford MW, Yoo SJ. Cardiovascular MRI without sedation or general anesthesia using a feed-and-sleep technique in neonates and infants. Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42(2):183–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grosse-Wortmann L, Yun TJ, Al-Radi O, Kim S, Nii M, Lee KJ, et al. Borderline hypoplasia of the left ventricle in neonates: insights for decision-making from functional assessment with magnetic resonance imaging. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136(6):1429–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.04.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Heusch A, Koch JA, Krogmann ON, Korbmacher B, Bourgeois M. Volumetric analysis of the right and left ventricle in a porcine heart model: Comparison of three-dimensional echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and angiocardiography. Eur J Ultrasound. 1999;9(3):245–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Helbing WA, Bosch HG, Maliepaard C, Rebergen SA, van der Geest RJ, Hansen B, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic methods with magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of right ventricular function in children. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76(8):589–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Geva T. Is MRI the preferred method for evaluating right ventricular size and function in patients with congenital heart disease? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(1):190–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.000553.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Critser PJ, Higano NS, Tkach JA, Olson ES, Spielberg DR, Kingma PS, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of neonatal bronchopulmonary dysplasia–associated pulmonary hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(1):73–82. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201904-0826OC.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Buechel ERV, Grosse-Wortmann L, Fratz S, Eichhorn J, Sarikouch S, Greil GF, et al. Indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in children with congenital and acquired heart disease: An expert consensus paper of the Imaging Working Group of the AEPC and the Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Section of the EACVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(3):281–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buechel EV, Kaiser T, Jackson C, Schmitz A, Kellenberger CJ. Normal right- and left ventricular volumes and myocardial mass in children measured by steady state free precession cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009;11(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kawel-Boehm N, Maceira A, Valsangiacomo-Buechel ER, Vogel-Claussen J, Turkbey EB, Williams R, et al. Normal values for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in adults and children. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17(1):1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Olivieri LJ, Jiang J, Hamann K, Loke YH, Campbell-Washburn A, Xue H, et al. Normal right and left ventricular volumes prospectively obtained from cardiovascular magnetic resonance in awake, healthy, 0–12 year old children. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020;22(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Ven JPG, Sadighy Z, Valsangiacomo Buechel ER, Sarikouch S, Robbers-Visser D, Kellenberger CJ, et al. Multicentre reference values for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging derived ventricular size and function for children aged 0–18 years. Eur Hear J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21(1):102–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Groves AM, Price AN, Russell-Webster T, Jhaveri S, Yang Y, Battersby EE, et al. Impact of maternal obesity on neonatal heart rate and cardiac size. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2022;107(5):481–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Poston L, Bell R, Croker H, Flynn AC, Godfrey KM, Goff L, et al. Effect of a behavioural intervention in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT study): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(10):767–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Price AN, Malik SJ, Broadhouse KM, Finnemore AE, Durighel G, Cox DJ, et al. Neonatal cardiac MRI using prolonged balanced SSFP imaging at 3T with active frequency stabilization. Magn Reson Med. 2013;70(3):776–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tkach JA, Merhar SL, Kline-Fath BM, Pratt RG, Loew WM, Daniels BR, et al. MRI in the neonatal ICU: Initial experience using a small-footprint 1.5-T system. Am J Roentgenol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Groves AM, Chiesa G, Durighel G, Goldring ST, Fitzpatrick JA, Uribe S, et al. Functional cardiac MRI in preterm and term newborns. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96(2):86–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dorosz JL, Lezotte DC, Weitzenkamp DA, Allen LA, Salcedo EE. Performance of 3-dimensional echocardiography in measuring left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(20):1799–808.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Myerson SG, Bellenger NG, Pennell DJ. Assessment of left ventricular mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Hypertension. 2002;39(3):750–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09985-9_11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephensen SS, Carlsson M, Ugander M, Engblom H, Olivecrona G, Erlinge D, et al. Agreement of left ventricular mass in steady state free precession and delayed enhancement MR images: Implications for quantification of fibrosis in congenital and ischemic heart disease. BMC Med Imaging. 2010;10:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Farber NJ, Reddy ST, Doyle M, Rayarao G, Thompson DV, Olson P, et al. Ex vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements of right and left ventricular mass compared with direct mass measurement in excised hearts after transplantation: a first human SSFP comparison. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16(1):1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Beygui F, Furber A, Delépine S, Helft G, Metzger JP, Geslin P, et al. Routine breath-hold gradient echo MRI-derived right ventricular mass, volumes and function: accuracy, reproducibility and coherence study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2004;20(6):509–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Koch JA, Poll LW, Godehardt E, Korbmacher B, Mödder U. Right and left ventricular volume measurements in an animal heart model in vitro: first experiences with cardiac MRI at 10 T. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(3):455–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grothues F, Smith GC, Moon JCC, Bellenger NG, Collins P, Klein HU, et al. Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90(1):29–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwartz ML, Gauvreau K, Geva T. Predictors of outcome of biventricular repair in infants with multiple left heart obstructive lesions. Circulation. 2001;104(6):682–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/hc3101.093904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nathan M, Emani S, Jsselhof IR, Liu H, Gauvreau K, Del NP. Mid-term outcomes in unbalanced complete atrioventricular septal defect: role of biventricular conversion from single-ventricle palliation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52(3):565–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maskatia SA, Petit CJ, Travers CD, Goldberg DJ, Rogers LS, Glatz AC, et al. Echocardiographic parameters associated with biventricular circulation and right ventricular growth following right ventricular decompression in patients with pulmonary atresia and intact ventricular septum: results from a multicenter study. Congenit Heart Dis. 2018;13(6):892–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sarikouch S, Schaeffler R, Körperich H, Dongas A, Haas NA, Beerbaum P. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for intensive care infants: Safe and effective? Pediatr Cardiol. 2009;30(2):146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fratz S, Chung T, Greil GF, Samyn MM, Taylor AM, Valsangiacomo Buechel ER, et al. Guidelines and protocols for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in children and adults with congenital heart disease: SCMR expert consensus group on congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Riffel JH, Schmucker K, Andre F, Ochs M, Hirschberg K, Schaub E, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance of cardiac morphology and function: impact of different strategies of contour drawing and indexing. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019;108(4):411–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1371-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Broadhouse KM, Finnemore AE, Price AN, Durighel G, Cox DJ, Edwards AD, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance of cardiac function and myocardial mass in preterm infants: a preliminary study of the impact of patent ductus arteriosus. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Maroules CD, McColl R, Khera A, Peshock RM. Interstudy reproducibility of SSFP cine magnetic resonance: impact of magnetic field strength and parallel imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(5):1139–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lopez L, Colan S, Stylianou M, Granger S, Trachtenberg F, Frommelt P, et al. Relationship of echocardiographic z scores adjusted for body surface area to age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(11):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.006979.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Funded by the British Heart Foundation Grant Ref PG/13/38/30289, Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and KCL. LP and DP were supported by Tommy’s charity, UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Simone Jhaveri, Kenan W. D. Stern & Jennifer Cohen

  2. Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York, New Hyde Park, NY, USA

    Simone Jhaveri

  3. Center for the Developing Brain, Kings College London, London, UK

    Ellie Battersby, Anthony Price & Emer Hughes

  4. Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Yang Yang

  5. Department of Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK

    Lucilla Poston, Dharmintra Pasupathy, Paul Taylor & Matias C. Vieira

  6. Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Syndey, NSW, Australia

    Dharmintra Pasupathy

  7. Department of Pediatrics, Dell Medical School at the University of Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Alan Groves

Authors
  1. Simone Jhaveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellie Battersby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenan W. D. Stern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anthony Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emer Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lucilla Poston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dharmintra Pasupathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paul Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Matias C. Vieira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alan Groves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SJ, EB, KS, YY were involved with post-processing analysis of MRI images, SJ drafted the manuscript, SJ and JC performed statistical analysis and interobserver variability, AP, EH, LP, DP, MV and PT were responsible for patient recruitment, consent, performance of CMR and image optimization, AG performed the study, provided oversight to data collection and significantly revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed data, critically revised manuscript and approved final version. All authors have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study); and have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Jhaveri.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study design and protocol were approved by the UK NHS Research Ethics Committee (UK Integrated Research Application System; reference 13/LO/1108). All assessments were performed for research purposes only, written informed parental consent was obtained in all cases.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Correlation between gestational age and ventricular variables.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jhaveri, S., Battersby, E., Stern, K.W.D. et al. Normative ranges of biventricular volumes and function in healthy term newborns. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 25, 26 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00932-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00932-1

Keywords

  • Neonates
  • Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
  • Normative data
  • Left ventricular volume
  • Left ventricular mass
  • Right ventricular volume
  • Right ventricular mass

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

ISSN: 1532-429X

Contact us