Refference Normal Values Of
Morphologic And Functional
2d-echocardiographic Parameters
Evaluated In A Group Of Young Healt...
Introduction

Despite an over two decades experience in echocardiography, Romanian cardiology do not knows
some reference ...
Objectives

determination by ultrasonographic investigation
of principal morphologic and functional cardiac
parameters, in...
Method

SIEMENS SONOLINE Versa Plus-echocardiograph
2.5 MHz- electronic ultrasound probe
Standard approach
- left paraster...
The Study Group

N = 80
Males
Mean age (yr.)…….. 21.35+/-1.76

(18 - 29)

Height (cm)……….….175+/-6.35

(163 - 189)

Weight...
Statistics

The results were represented as:
- Mean value
- Standard deviation
- Maximal value
- Minimal value
The correla...
Results
1. Morphologic Parameters
Aor Aov IVSd PWd LVd LVs

0.85

LA

RA

3.1

2. 2

2.62

3.28

Mean 1.94

2.85

0.84

Sd...
Results

2. Lv Mass Indicators
LV Mass(g) =1.04((LVd+IVSd+PWd)3-LVd)3-14 (Devereux)
Mean LV mass = 134 +/- 27,4 g
Max. LV ...
Results

3. LV Diastolic Function
Pick E
(m/s)

Pick A
(m/s)

E/A

IVRT
(ms)

EF-S

(mm/s)

Mean

0.91

0.51

1.91

64.86
...
Results

4. LV Systolic Function

(Evaluation by PWD in LV Ejection Tract)
Vmx
(m/s)

ACC
(m/s)

AT
(ms)

VTI
(cm)

LVET
(...
Statistical Corelations

BSA vs LV Mass ; r = 0.51 (p<0.01)

BMI vs LV Mass ; r = 0.42 (p<0.01)
Conclusions

The morphologic parameters found in our study
group are similar with the literature data; they are
related wi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Reference Normal Values Of Morphologic And Functional 2d-echocardiographic Parameters Evaluated In A Group Of Young Healt Adults

486 views
215 views

Published on

Reference normal echocardiographic values in young male subjects

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
486
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reference Normal Values Of Morphologic And Functional 2d-echocardiographic Parameters Evaluated In A Group Of Young Healt Adults

  1. 1. Refference Normal Values Of Morphologic And Functional 2d-echocardiographic Parameters Evaluated In A Group Of Young Healt Adults Authors: Al.Andritoiu, N.Gavrila Military hospital CRAIOVA Romania
  2. 2. Introduction Despite an over two decades experience in echocardiography, Romanian cardiology do not knows some reference studies involving health people and also differing by age category Romanian military cardiology also, needs some modern studies based by evaluation with an actual US- technique of the principal morphologic and functional parameters, specific to the young adult age
  3. 3. Objectives determination by ultrasonographic investigation of principal morphologic and functional cardiac parameters, in a group of young adults without heart diseases need of reference standard values for our own echo- laboratory and also in Romanian cardiology literature
  4. 4. Method SIEMENS SONOLINE Versa Plus-echocardiograph 2.5 MHz- electronic ultrasound probe Standard approach - left parasternal LAX- view - apical - 4 C and apical 5- C views the pacient positioned in left- lateral decubitus at an angle of 90 degrees the measurements were made in 2D-Echo ASE recommendations were respected Spectral Doppler (PWD) with theta angle correction
  5. 5. The Study Group N = 80 Males Mean age (yr.)…….. 21.35+/-1.76 (18 - 29) Height (cm)……….….175+/-6.35 (163 - 189) Weight (kg)…………..72+/-13.75 ( 53 - 117) BS Area (m2)...…..…1.86+/- 0.17 (1.56 - 2.41) BMI (kg/m2)………..22.66+/- 3.68 ( 21 - 37 )
  6. 6. Statistics The results were represented as: - Mean value - Standard deviation - Maximal value - Minimal value The correlations were determined by Pearson equation
  7. 7. Results 1. Morphologic Parameters Aor Aov IVSd PWd LVd LVs 0.85 LA RA 3.1 2. 2 2.62 3.28 Mean 1.94 2.85 0.84 Sd 0.17 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.42 0.32 Max 2.17 2.9 1 1 5.5 4.2 3 3.9 3.8 Min 1.6 2.1 0.7 0.7 3.4 2.5 1.6 1.9 2.8 Results are expressed in cm. 4.45 RD
  8. 8. Results 2. Lv Mass Indicators LV Mass(g) =1.04((LVd+IVSd+PWd)3-LVd)3-14 (Devereux) Mean LV mass = 134 +/- 27,4 g Max. LV mass = 235 g Min. LV mass = 70 g LV Mass Index = LV Mass (g) / BSA(m2) Mean LVMIx = 71,54+/-14.2 g/m2 Max. LVMIx = 110 g/m2 Min. LVMIx = 45 g/m2
  9. 9. Results 3. LV Diastolic Function Pick E (m/s) Pick A (m/s) E/A IVRT (ms) EF-S (mm/s) Mean 0.91 0.51 1.91 64.86 121.4 Sd 0.17 0.13 0.36 9.04 19.6 Max. 1.37 0.79 2.6 90 165 Min. 0.56 0.25 1.13 50 75
  10. 10. Results 4. LV Systolic Function (Evaluation by PWD in LV Ejection Tract) Vmx (m/s) ACC (m/s) AT (ms) VTI (cm) LVET (ms) Mean 1.11 15.81 75.14 19.4 Sd 0.19 2.02 8.22 3.7 28.36 Max. 1. 8 21.5 90 28 300 Min. 0. 8 12.12 50 14.5 180 267.5
  11. 11. Statistical Corelations BSA vs LV Mass ; r = 0.51 (p<0.01) BMI vs LV Mass ; r = 0.42 (p<0.01)
  12. 12. Conclusions The morphologic parameters found in our study group are similar with the literature data; they are related with somatic indicators of the subjects which were studied In young adults, LV systolic and diastolic functional parameters appear with high amplitudes in comparison with the values reported in health adults and olds; these data are useful in a correct estimation of LV hemodynamic performance

×