Myocardial deformation by echocardiographic strain imaging is a key measurement in cardiology, providing valuable diagnostic and prognostic information. Reference ranges for strain should be established from large healthy populations with minimal methodologic biases and variability.
The aim of this study was to establish echocardiographic reference ranges, including lower normal limits of global strains for all 4 cardiac chambers, by guideline-directed dedicated views from a large healthy population and to evaluate the influence of subject-specific characteristics on strain.
In total, 1,329 healthy participants from HUNT4Echo, the echocardiographic substudy of the 4th wave of the Trøndelag Health Study, were included. Echocardiographic recordings specific for each chamber were optimized according to current recommendations. Two experienced sonographers recorded all echocardiograms using GE HealthCare Vivid E95 scanners. Analyses were performed by experts using GE HealthCare EchoPAC.
The reference ranges for left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain and right ventricular free-wall strain were -24% to -16% and -35% to -17%, respectively. Correspondingly, left atrial (LA) and right atrial (RA) reservoir strains were 17% to 49% and 17% to 59%. All strains showed lower absolute values with higher age, except for LA and RA contractile strains, which were higher. The feasibility for strain was overall good (LV 96%, right ventricular 83%, LA 94%, and RA 87%). All chamber-specific strains were associated with age, and LV strain was associated with sex.
Reference ranges of strain for all cardiac chambers were established based on guideline-directed chamber-specific recordings. Age and sex were the most important factors influencing reference ranges and should be considered when using strain echocardiography.

Continuous technologic development and updated recommendations for image acquisitions creates a need to update the current normal reference ranges for echocardiography. The best method of indexing cardiac volumes is unknown.
The authors used 2- and 3-dimensional echocardiographic data from a large cohort of healthy individuals to provide updated normal reference data for dimensions and volumes of the cardiac chambers as well as central Doppler measurements.
In the fourth wave of the HUNT (Trøndelag Health) study in Norway 2,462 individuals underwent comprehensive echocardiography. Of these, 1,412 (55.8% women) were classified as normal and formed the basis for updated normal reference ranges. Volumetric measures were indexed to body surface area and height in powers of 1 to 3.
Normal reference data for echocardiographic dimensions, volumes, and Doppler measurements were presented according to sex and age. Left ventricular ejection fraction had lower normal limits of 50.8% for women and 49.6% for men. According to sex-specific age groups, the upper normal limits for left atrial end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area ranged from 44 mL/m2 to 53 mL/m2, and the corresponding upper normal limit for right ventricular basal dimension ranged from 43 mm to 53 mm. Indexing to height raised to the power of 3 accounted for more of the variation between sexes than indexing to body surface area.
The authors present updated normal reference values for a wide range of echocardiographic measures of both left- and right-side ventricular and atrial size and function from a large healthy population with a wide age-span. The higher upper normal limits for left atrial volume and right ventricular dimension highlight the importance of updating reference ranges accordingly following refinement of echocardiographic methods.

The definition of \"abnormal\" in clinical sciences is often based on so-called reference values which point to a range that experts by some sort of consensus consider as normal when looking at biological variables. Such a level is commonly calculated by taking (twice) the standard deviation from the mean, or considering certain percentiles. The suspicion or even confirmation of a disease is then established by demonstrating that the value measured exceeds the upper or lower reference value. As is often the case, the measurement accuracy may depend on the conditions and specific method employed to collect and analyze data. This implies that, for example, data assessed by 2D echocardiography possibly differ from those obtained by MRI and therefore require modality-specific reference values. In this review we summarize reference values for the electrocardiogram, cardiac compartmental volumes, and arterial vessel size in males and females for various age groups. These values may further depend on other variables such as body size, physical training status, and ethnicity. Additional variables relevant for cardiology such as those referring to the microcirculation and biomarkers are only mentioned with reference to the pertinent literature. In general, the sex- and age-specific differences observed are often remarkable and warrant consideration in clinical practice and basic biomedical sciences.

Current guidelines recommend that the atria be measured in 2D echocardiographic (2DE) apical views using the method-of-disks (MOD) or area-length (AL) technique as an alternative, although no definitive data exists that these are interchangeable. However, standard apical views maximize the long-axis of the left ventricle, rather than the dimensions of the atria, resulting in atrial foreshortening. We hypothesized that the increase in normal values of atrial volumes in the recent guidelines update was driven by data obtained using either the AL technique or dedicated atrial-focused views, which maximize the longitudinal dimension of the atria and thus provide larger volumes than the MOD measurements in standard apical views. We prospectively studied 30 patients (Philips iE33) to compare 2DE measurements of left and right atrial volumes (LAV, RAV) using the MOD and AL techniques in standard and atrial-focused views, against 3D echocardiography (3DE) derived volumes (QLab) as a reference. Compared to standard views, atrial-focused views provided significantly larger MOD volumes for both atria, which were in better agreement with 3DE, as reflected by higher correlation coefficients (LAV: r = 0.95 vs. 0.89; RAV: r = 0.89 vs. 0.84), smaller biases (LAV: -1 ml vs. 7 ml; RAV: 3 ml vs. 7 ml) and tighter limits of agreement. This was also the case for the AL measurements, which were minimally larger than the MOD values (NS) for both atria. In conclusion, atrial-focused views are a more accurate alternative to standard apical views, which provides larger volumes. This finding can explain the increase in the normal values in the recent guidelines update, which was mostly driven by the use of atrial-focused views, rather than by the differences between MOD and AL techniques. This understanding is essential in order to correctly integrate the revised normal values into clinical practice.