Next Article in Journal
LINE-1 Methylation Status in Canine Splenic Hemangiosarcoma Tissue and Cell-Free DNA
Next Article in Special Issue
Serum Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Cats with Inflammatory Bronchial Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Primary Feline Tauopathy: Clinical, Morphological, Immunohistochemical, and Genetic Studies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cardiological Reference Intervals in Adult American Staffordshire Terrier Dogs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 18
10.3390/ani13182986
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

M-Mode Echocardiography in Canine Veterinary Practice: A Comprehensive Review of Left Ventricular Measurements in 44 Different Dog Breeds

by
Maria Cerbu
1,†,
Constantin Cerbu
2,*,† and
Ionel Papuc
1
1
Department of Comparative Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2023, 13(18), 2986; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182986
Submission received: 13 August 2023 / Revised: 14 September 2023 / Accepted: 19 September 2023 / Published: 21 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Canine and Feline Diagnostics—2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This review article focuses on canine M-mode (motion mode), particularly for assessing the left ventricle measurements in several dog breeds. It traces the evolution of echocardiography techniques, highlighting A-mode, B-mode, and M-mode for accurate unidimensional cardiac structure records. This article emphasizes M-mode’s significance in diagnosing conditions like MMVD, where identifying cardiac enlargement requires measuring left ventricular end-diastolic internal diameter corrected with body weight (LVIDdN). Also, M-mode’s role in DCM diagnosis is explained, noting criteria such as left ventricular dilatation. This review compiles data from various scientific sources to establish a methodology, presenting a detailed table of M-mode measurements for different breeds, ages, and sexes. In essence, our review underscores M-mode echocardiography’s crucial role in diagnosing and managing cardiac diseases in dogs. It highlights the significance of breed-specific reference values and offers a comprehensive summary of such measurements for diverse dog breeds, benefiting both clinicians and researchers.

Abstract

This review article focuses on the use of canine M-mode in veterinary medicine, specifically in assessing the left ventricle measurements in several breeds. It traces the historical development of echocardiography techniques, including A-mode, B-mode, and motion mode (M-mode), which provide accurate unidimensional records of cardiac structures. This article highlights the significance of M-mode measurements in diagnosing stage B2 of MMVD, where left ventricular end-diastolic internal diameter corrected with body weight (LVIDdN) is essential for identifying cardiac enlargement. It also explains the role of M-mode in diagnosing DCM, outlining criteria such as left ventricular dilatation. The authors emphasize the importance of breed-specific reference values for echocardiographic measurements due to variations in somatotype among dogs. This review provides a comprehensive table summarizing M-mode measurements of the left ventricle for 44 different dog breeds, including interventricular septum thickness, left ventricular internal diameter, and left ventricular posterior wall thickness during systole and diastole. This review’s methodology involves compiling data from various scientific literature sources, providing an extensive tabular representation of M-mode measurements for different breeds, ages, and sexes. Overall, this review highlights the critical role of M-mode echocardiography in diagnosing and managing cardiac diseases in dogs, underscores the importance of breed-specific reference values, and presents a comprehensive summary of M-mode measurements for various dog breeds, aiding both clinicians and researchers.

1. Introduction

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been routinely used in veterinary medicine since the early 1980s to assess the dynamic morphology and function of the canine heart [1,2]. A-mode (amplitude mode) echocardiography was first used where reflected echoes were displayed as peaks on an oscilloscopic monitor [3]. This allowed the identification of cardiac structures based on peak distribution in time, amplitude, and intensity. B-mode (brightness mode) was later developed, representing reflected signals as fixed dots with brightness proportional to signal intensity. The addition of a time scale to the B-mode led to the development of the motion mode (M-mode) technique, displaying reflected echoes as vertical lines side by side on a time axis, allowing analysis of structures crossed by the ultrasonic beam [3]. Therefore, the echocardiographic M-mode provides a highly accurate unidimensional record of structures crossed by the ultrasonic beam.
Cardiac measurements are commonly determined using either the M-mode or the two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography, both of which allow measurement of left ventricular (LV) dimensions [1]. It is primarily used in cardiology to measure interventricular septum thickness (IVS), left ventricular internal dimensions (LVD), and left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPW) during systole and diastole. It can be interpreted from two views: 1. the right parasternal long-axis at the mitral valve level; and 2. the right parasternal short-axis view at the chordae tendineae level [4,5]. Schober and Baade (2000) found that M-mode measurements varied depending on the section approached, with long-axis sections showing slightly higher values compared with short-axis sections (around 5% difference) in healthy dogs. However, in dogs with cardiac pathology, these differences were statistically relevant, particularly for the diameter of the left ventricle in systole and diastole and the size of the interventricular septum in systole. Therefore, it is recommended to avoid interchanging sections, especially in patients with cardiac diseases [6]. Even if M-mode echocardiography is the most commonly used method for measuring left ventricular (LV) dimensions, it has several limitations: it is one-dimensional and it relies on geometric assumptions that may not hold true in all disease states [7].
Various attempts have been made to establish better correlations between M-mode measurements and body weight. Logarithmic or second-order polynomial models were found to predict reference values for M-mode measurements of cardiac chamber size more accurately than simple linear models. However, for M-mode measurements of cardiac wall thickness, logarithmic and polynomial models did not outperform simple linear models [8]. Since 2004, allometric scaling has been used and appears to be applicable to normal adult dogs of most breeds. Mean values and prediction intervals were calculated for normal dogs, allowing veterinarians to correctly index M-mode values. A commonly used formula for normalization is LVIDdN = LVIDd (cm)/weight (kg)0.294 [9]. An updated equation proposes the following: LVIDdN = LVIDd (cm)/weight (kg)0.299 [10]. It is worth noting that the updated equation is not yet recognized by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) or the European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ECVIM).
The most common heart diseases in dogs are myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) [11,12,13]. Diagnosis for both conditions relies on measurements obtained from M-mode echocardiography. For the diagnosis of Myxomatous mitral valve disease, one of the four criteria that identify stage ACVIM B2 in dogs is an increase in the left ventricular chamber size [11]. To assess the severity of cardiac enlargement, measurement of left ventricular end-diastolic internal diameter corrected with body weight (LVIDdN) is necessary [9]. The criterion for identifying advanced stage B2 of MMDV in dogs is an LVIDdN value of ≥1.7 [11,14]. The combined use of standard 2D and M-mode echocardiography along with conventional Doppler examination plays a critical role in assessing dogs affected by MMDV [15].
The European Society of Veterinary Cardiology (ESVC) task force provides guidelines for diagnosing DCM primarily based on M-mode and 2D echocardiography. Diagnosis of DCM requires the presence of the following three criteria: (i) left ventricular dilatation, (ii) reduced systolic function, and (iii) increased sphericity of the left ventricle [13]. Hence, M-mode in canine echocardiography is an indispensable diagnostic tool. Initially, M-mode measurements were taken from the trailing endocardial edge of the anterior wall to the leading endocardial edge of the posterior wall of each observed structure. Nowadays, the leading edge method [16] is recommended, where measurements are taken from the leading endocardial edge of the anterior wall to the leading endocardial edge of the posterior wall of the structure of interest [17].
Advancements in the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiovascular diseases in dogs are continuously being made. Various variables, such as breed, somatotype, sex, age, body weight (BW), heart rate (HR), and athletic condition, have been reported to impact cardiac measurements [18,19,20]. Commonly used reference ranges in canine cardiology come from populations of multiple breeds and centers, and they depend on BW [1,9,10,19,21]. Breed-specific reference values are necessary to more accurately evaluate the heart due to the significant variation in somatotype among dogs. Currently, there are about 40 breed-specific echocardiographic studies, with several breeds showing significant differences compared with the general population of healthy mixed-breed dogs.
Generic reference values for echocardiographic measurements have been published for a wide dog population [1,9,17,18,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. However, recent findings show that specific dog breeds’ recorded values must be interpreted based on their normal values [30]. In other words, values obtained from breed-specific echocardiographic studies significantly differ from the general population of healthy dogs of various breeds [9,10,19,24,31,32,33,34]. General population measurements have a wide range and rely on regression analysis and 95% prediction intervals, limiting their clinical usefulness [30]. Breed-specific reference ranges may be more helpful in avoiding misinterpretation of echocardiographic findings [35,36].
In dogs, especially since the advent of M-mode echocardiography, researchers have focused on establishing standard measurements for cardiac structures [31]. Breed-specific, or at least somatotype-specific, normal echocardiographic parameters, such as left ventricular and atrial measurements, are essential for accurate initial cardiac diagnoses and for managing disease progression and severity [34]. As an important amount of information is available in the field of echocardiography, the present review aimed to concentrate the data of the normal reference ranges of LV obtained in M-mode in healthy dogs of both sexes and different ages from all the breeds studied to date. M-mode data on parameters like the left atrium dimension and aortic root dimension were excluded from this review because they were not sufficiently represented within the selected studies. The authors aimed to present the information in a concise, tabular format, benefiting both clinicians and researchers.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted based on reference values obtained from M-mode echocardiography of the left ventricle (LV) for 44 different dog breeds as reported in the scientific literature from three databases. We identified scientific articles through Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. We conducted systematic searches using the keywords “dog”, “left ventricle”, and “M-mode”, following the protocol in Figure 1, resulting in the consideration of 64 different papers. The data included information on the dogs’ ages, sexes, and sedation status during the echocardiography examination. Additionally, the LV dimensions measured in millimeters were considered, including interventricular septum in diastole (IVSd), left ventricular internal diameter in diastole (LVIDd), left ventricular posterior wall in diastole (LVPWd), interventricular septum in systole (IVSs), left ventricular internal diameter in systole (LVIDs), and left ventricular posterior wall in systole (LVPWs).
All the dogs included in the studies considered for this review met similar inclusion criteria. Before the echocardiographic measurements, the dogs underwent physical examination, and they were found to be free of any abnormal findings. The dogs also had a good body score and normal ECG measurements. Additionally, on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), none of the enrolled dogs (from the studies used) showed any signs of acquired or congenital heart disease.

3. M-Mode Measurements of LV Based on Breed

The following table (Table 1) contains summarized information about the main LV measurements for 44 different dog breeds in an easy-to-read format. For consistency, measuring units were presented in millimeters. Where available, data were provided as intervals rather than mean.

4. Results and Discussions

The majority of publications focused on adult dogs, with a few exceptions that included dogs under 12 months of age [30,31,34,38,39,43,48]. Studies on LV parameters in M-mode have revealed notable differences between growing dogs, particularly between puppies and adult dogs [31,38,41,43]. The most significant disparity appears between the first and second month, with cardiac chambers nearly doubling in size. Interestingly, wall thickness does not increase as rapidly, suggesting that ventricular myocardial fibers in postnatal dogs tend to lengthen more than widen. Another possibility is that myocardial density increases with age while extracellular water concentration decreases [31]. In female Beagles, the most rapid heart growth occurs before 7 months of age, consistent with observations in other breeds like the Spanish Mastiff and English Pointer. Corporal growth in female Beagles generally concludes around 9 months, while cardiac growth can be considered complete by 13 months with only slight modifications thereafter [38]. Furthermore, age-associated effects are observed in various parameters for female Beagles, including LVIDd, LVIDs, LVPWd, and LVPWs. The onset of these differences varies by parameter: 7 months for LVIDs; 10 months for LVIDd, LVPWs, Ao, and LA; 13 months for LVPWd and LVEDV, and 17 months for heart rate [38]. In a study involving growing dogs older than 12 months, a positive correlation was observed between age and LVPWs, IVSs, and IVSd in Dogue de Bordeaux. Specifically, mean values of LVPWs and IVSd were significantly influenced by age, with p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively [41]. In Labrador Retrievers, the mean values of LVPWs for young dogs in age groups 1–2 and 2–3 years were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) from those in the age group 3–5 years [53]. However, no such variations were found in German Shepherd dogs, as there were no statistical differences observed in any of the M-mode echocardiographic parameters with respect to age [25]. In English Bulldogs, left ventricular wall thickness, specifically the left ventricular posterior wall thickness and interventricular septum thickness, increased with age. This phenomenon has been observed previously in both humans and dogs [38,58]. It has been hypothesized that aging results in the gradual loss of myocardial cells, leading to hypertrophy of the neighboring myocytes [42,58]. However, in one of the Chihuahua studies included in the review, age had only a minor impact on LVPWd, which was considered to be of limited clinical significance. This discrepancy is likely because the study primarily included young dogs [39]. In summary, there are significant differences in LV measurements among growing dogs up to 13 months of age, and variations in these measurements in growing adult dogs appear to be breed-dependent.
Two studies exclusively included female dogs, both from the Beagle breed, while no publications focused solely on males. Some studies allowed for the separation of measurements based on sex, and consistent differences were found between genders. For example, in female Beagles, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.006) in left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT) in systole and diastole [18]. The other study of Beagle could not confirm this as it included females only [38]. One German Shepherd study showed a significant relationship between gender and left ventricular posterior wall thickness in systole and diastole [25]. The other two studies [2,26] could not confirm this difference as the authors did not present different information for males and females. Male Kangal dogs had higher left ventricular posterior wall thickness than females [50]. Significant differences in M-mode left ventricular dimensions (MMLVD) were observed between male and female Great Danes from the United Kingdom [45]; LVIDd (p = 0.001) and LVIDs (p = 0.011) were significantly lower in female dogs. Similarly, male Dachshunds had larger diastolic and systolic left ventricular diameter than females [30], while adult Cavalier King Charles Spaniels showed a significant but negligible effect of gender [15]. There is a noticeable distinction in values between males and females across various breeds. As shown for Beagle and German Shepard, not all studies on the same breed could verify this since some focused exclusively on one gender or did not account for gender differences.
Some studies conducted measurements on dogs under sedation [33,38,46]. Acepromazine was used at different doses and administration methods, in combination with pethidine or morphine. Sedation status during the examination is clinically relevant, as some anesthetic drugs can interfere with cardiac contractility and impact heart rate, rhythm, preload, afterload, and myocardial contractile and relaxation properties [59,60,61]. Careful consideration of sedation effects is essential for accurate echocardiographic evaluation.
Reference values for eleven breeds (Beagle, German Shepherd, Boxer, Golden Retriever, Whippet, Greyhound, Great Dane, Irish Wolfhound, Labrador Retriever, Dachshunds, and Chihuahua) were described in two to four independent publications. Each study was based on a different number of individuals. Some breeds exhibited similar values to previous studies, while others showed slight variations, possibly due to factors like somatotype and physical activity levels [2,31,44,48].
Mean values for cardiac measurements were shown to be consistent between several studies on different breeds. For example, the mean values for ISTd, ISTs, LVWTd, and LVWTs in Dobermann Pinschers, Malinois, and Dutch Shepherds were similar to those reported in previous studies [17,43,62,63,64]. However, Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds exhibited slightly higher mean values than Dobermann Pinschers, Malinois, and Dutch Shepherds, possibly due to variations in somatotype [2]. In small breeds, LVIDdN values significantly vary; for instance, Miniature Poodles had a reported LVIDdN of 1.6 ± 0.4, while Toy Poodles, with their smaller size (<5.0 kg), displayed a lower LVIDdN value of 1.342 ± 0.1164 [14,19]. The structure of the upper airway system can influence certain cardiac measurements. However, no significant differences in LV M-mode measurements were found between BOAS+ and BOAS- groups. Similarly, when examining BOAS Grades, no significant differences in echocardiographic measurements between grades were detected [56]. Additionally, the median IVSd and IVSs of pugs in the study of Wiegel et al. [56] were found to be significantly thicker compared with previous studies by Cornell et al. [9] and Esser et al. [21]. It is worth mentioning that these significant deviations in reference intervals persisted despite normalizing pug measurements with the equivalent allometric equations from each respective interbreed study [56].
Recent publications show increased interest in values for small breed dogs, along with Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherds. Age and body weight are significant factors contributing to value variations. Visser (2019) [10] and Cornell (2004) [9] propose formulas for normalizing values based on dog weight, with the former recognized by ACVIM [11]. Body weight variations in adult dogs of the same breed and gender are low and were not relevant in this review.
To ensure accurate interpretation of echocardiographic examinations in dogs, it is crucial to consider breed-specific reference values. Failing to do so can lead to misinterpretations, falsely indicating heart enlargement or altered activity when compared with general reference ranges, potentially resulting in misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment [22,29,35,42,54]. The coefficients of variation for all echocardiographically measured parameters can range from 5.03% to 46.43%, with the majority falling below 20% [65]. Notably, the intraobserver category is considered to exhibit the least variation, indicating the best reproducibility, particularly for M-mode and left ventricular volumetric data. Specifically, the coefficient of variation values for left ventricular M-mode measurements is considered reasonably low, suggesting that a change exceeding 10–18% is likely to be significant [65]. Therefore, establishing clinically relevant reference intervals for echocardiographic measurements poses challenges. Combining dogs of all breeds to estimate an overall regression line may lead to overly broad and clinically irrelevant reference ranges. Certain breeds may be misrepresented and misinterpreted by such generalized lines. The sample size used for establishing these ranges is also important, as it impacts the width of the reference range [19]. Table 1 also highlights a significant limitation in the available data for M-mode measurements: the study population size. Most studies have a relatively small sample size that may not represent the entire population. Furthermore, there are notable disparities in the sample sizes across some studies. Although statistical comparisons can be applied to average values or intervals, achieving statistical significance alone may not ensure biological significance. Furthermore, interpreting results from such comparisons can be highly speculative, particularly due to the presence of confounding factors. Therefore, readers should give preference to studies with larger sample sizes when evaluating data.

5. Conclusions

Echocardiography remains the primary tool for veterinarians to evaluate the heart. The reference ranges for left ventricle measurements obtained in M-mode have been a subject of controversy and significant interest in veterinary cardiology. A current trend among researchers is to standardize these values according to breed.
Established echocardiographic criteria and applicable reference intervals are crucial for accurate cardiac screening and interpretation. While echocardiographic values for the general canine population have been published, these multibreed prediction intervals are influenced by breed and somatotype. Therefore, the use of breed-specific echocardiographic reference intervals is a more suitable approach for assessing cardiac structure and function.
The results of this review may be useful in the echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac diseases. This could represent a valid option along the values proposed before by Boon (2011) [1], Cornell (2004) [9], Visser (2019) [10], and Esser (2020) [21]. Moreover, the data compiled provide valuable information on the LV dimensions in different dog breeds and will contribute to a better understanding of normal cardiac measurements for various breeds.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.C. and I.P.; formal analysis, investigation, and methodology: M.C. and C.C.; supervision: I.P.; writing—original draft: M.C.; writing—review and editing: C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

No applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boon, J.A. Veterinary Echocardiography; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  2. De Lima, A.M.; Moreira, R.M.; Gomes, M.S.; Ramos, M.T.; dos Santos-Sousa, C.A.; Souza-Júnior, P.; Abidu-Figueiredo, M. Echocardiographic evaluation of working dogs of the Military Police of Rio de Janeiro: Effects of the breed and body weight. Braz. J. Vet. Med. 2022, 44, e001322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Carerj, S.; Micari, A.; Trono, A.; Giordano, G.; Cerrito, M.; Zito, C.; Luzza, F.; Coglitore, S.; Arrigo, F.; Oreto, G. Anatomical M-Mode: An Old–New Technique. Echocardiography 2003, 20, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Penninck, D.; d’Anjou, M.-A. Atlas of Small Animal Ultrasonography; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  5. Noviana, D.; Paramitha, D.; Wulansari, R. Motion mode and two dimensional echocardiographic measurements of cardiac dimensions of Indonesian mongrel dogs. HAYATI J. Biosci. 2011, 18, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schober, K.E.; Baade, H. Comparability of left ventricular M-mode echocardiography in dogs performed in long-axis and short-axis. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound 2000, 41, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Smets, P.; Daminet, S.; Wess, G. Simpson’s method of discs for measurement of echocardiographic end-diastolic and end-systolic left ventricular volumes: Breed-specific reference ranges in Boxer dogs. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2014, 28, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gonçalves, A.C.; Orton, E.C.; Boon, J.A.; Salman, M. Linear, logarithmic, and polynomial models of M-mode echocardiographic measurements in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2002, 63, 994–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cornell, C.C.; Kittleson, M.D.; Torre, P.D.; Häggström, J.; Lombard, C.W.; Pedersen, H.D.; Vollmar, A.; Wey, A. Allometric scaling of M-mode cardiac measurements in normal adult dogs. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2004, 18, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Visser, L.C.; Ciccozzi, M.M.; Sintov, D.J.; Sharpe, A.N. Echocardiographic quantitation of left heart size and function in 122 healthy dogs: A prospective study proposing reference intervals and assessing repeatability. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2019, 33, 1909–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Keene, B.W.; Atkins, C.E.; Bonagura, J.D.; Fox, P.R.; Häggström, J.; Fuentes, V.L.; Oyama, M.A.; Rush, J.E.; Stepien, R.; Uechi, M. ACVIM consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of myxomatous mitral valve disease in dogs. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2019, 33, 1127–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wess, G. Screening for dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2022, 40, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dukes-McEwan, J.; Borgarelli, M.; Tidholm, A.; Vollmar, A.C.; Häggström, J.; Cardiomyopathy, E.T.f.C.D. Proposed guidelines for the diagnosis of canine idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2003, 5, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Isayama, N.; Uchimura, Y.; Sasaki, K.; Maeda, E.; Takahashi, T.; Watanabe, M. Reference Values of M-mode Echocardiographic Parameter in Adult Toy Breed Dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 918457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Misbach, C.; Lefebvre, H.P.; Concordet, D.; Gouni, V.; Trehiou-Sechi, E.; Petit, A.M.; Damoiseaux, C.; Leverrier, A.; Pouchelon, J.-L.; Chetboul, V. Echocardiography and conventional Doppler examination in clinically healthy adult Cavalier King Charles Spaniels: Effect of body weight, age, and gender, and establishment of reference intervals. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2014, 16, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wyatt, H.L.; Haendchen, R.V.; Meerbaum, S.; Corday, E. Assessment of quantitative methods for 2-dimensional echocardiography. Am. J. Cardiol. 1983, 52, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gugjoo, M.; Saxena, A.; Hoque, M.; Zama, M. M-mode echocardiographic study in dogs. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 387–396. [Google Scholar]
  18. Crippa, L.; Ferro, E.; Melloni, E.; Brambilla, P.; Cavalletti, E. Echocardiographic parameters and indices in the normal Beagle dog. Lab. Anim. 1992, 26, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Morrison, S.A.; Moise, N.S.; Scarlett, J.; Mohammed, H.; Yeager, A.E. Effect of breed and body weight on echocardiographic values in four breeds of dogs of differing somatotype. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 1992, 6, 220–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kurosawa, T.; Sist, M.; Sanders, R. Echocardiographic variables in healthy North American Salukis. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2018, 20, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Esser, L.C.; Borkovec, M.; Bauer, A.; Häggström, J.; Wess, G. Left ventricular M-mode prediction intervals in 7651 dogs: Population-wide and selected breed-specific values. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2020, 34, 2242–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jacobs, G.; Mahjoob, K. Multiple regression analysis, using body size and cardiac cycle length, in predicting echocardiographic variables in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1988, 49, 1290–1294. [Google Scholar]
  23. De Madron, E. Update on normal TM (M-Mode) echocardiographic values in the dog. Prat. Medicale Chir. L Anim. Cie. 1995, 30, 647–658. [Google Scholar]
  24. Vollmar, A.C. Echocardiographic measurements in the Irish wolfhound: Reference values for the breed. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 1999, 35, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kayar, A.; Gonul, R.; ERMAN OR, M.; Uysal, A. M-mode echocardiographic parameters and indices in the normal German shepherd dog. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound 2006, 47, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Muzzi, R.A.L.; Muzzi, L.A.L.; De Araujo, R.B.; Cherem, M. Echocardiographic indices in normal German shepherd dogs. J. Vet. Sci. 2006, 7, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bavegems, V.; Duchateau, L.; Sys, S.U.; De Rick, A. Echocardiographic reference values in whippets. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound 2007, 48, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cunningham, S.; Rush, J.; Freeman, L.; Brown, D.; Smith, C. Echocardiographic ratio indices in overtly healthy Boxer dogs screened for heart disease. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2008, 22, 924–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Jacobson, J.H.; Boon, J.A.; Bright, J.M. An echocardiographic study of healthy Border Collies with normal reference ranges for the breed. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2013, 15, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Garncarz, M.; Parzeniecka-Jaworska, M.; Czopowicz, M.; Hulanicka, M.; Jank, M.; Szaluś-Jordanow, O. Reference intervals for transthoracic echocardiographic measurements in adult Dachshunds. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2018, 21, 779–788. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bayon, A.; del Palacio, M.F.; Montes, A.M.; Panizo, C.G. M-mode echocardiography study in growing Spanish mastiffs. J. Small Anim. Pract. 1994, 35, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koch, J.; Pedersen, H.; Jensen, A.; Flagstad, A. M-mode echocardiographic diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy in giant breed dogs. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A 1996, 43, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Torre, P.D.; Kirby, A.; Church, D.; Malik, R. Echocardiographic measurements in Greyhounds, Whippets and Italian Greyhounds-dogs with a similar conformation but different size. Aust. Vet. J. 2000, 78, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Leary, C.; Mackay, B.; Taplin, R.; Atwell, R. Echocardiographic parameters in 14 healthy English bull terriers. Aust. Vet. J. 2003, 81, 535–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Vurucu, M.; Ekinci, G.; Gunes, V. An echocardiographic study of breed-specific reference ranges in healthy French Bulldogs. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound 2021, 62, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Vatne, L.; Dickson, D.; Tidholm, A.; Caivano, D.; Rishniw, M. The effects of activity, body weight, sex and age on echocardiographic values in English setter dogs. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2021, 37, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Vezzosi, T.; Ghinelli, R.; Ferrari, P.; Porciello, F. Reference intervals for transthoracic echocardiography in the American Staffordshire Terrier. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2021, 83, 656–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Diez-Prieto, I.; García-Rodríguez, M.B.; Ríos-Granja, M.; Cano-Rábano, M.J.; Peña-Penabad, M.; Pérez-García, C.C. M-mode echocardiographic changes in growing beagles. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 2010, 49, 31–35. [Google Scholar]
  39. Niimi, S.; Kobayashi, H.; Take, Y.; Ikoma, S.; Namikawa, S.; Fujii, Y. Reference intervals for echocardiographic measurements in healthy Chihuahua dogs. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2022, 84, 754–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lim, C.K.; Fosgate, G.T.; Green, H.W.; Kirberger, R.M. Two-dimensional left atrium–to–aorta ratios and left ventricular M-mode transthoracic echocardiographic measurements in clinically normal adult Dachshunds. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2016, 77, 374–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Locatelli, C.; Santini, A.; Bonometti, G.; Palermo, V.; Scarpa, P.; Sala, E.; Brambilla, P. Echocardiographic values in clinically healthy adult dogue de Bordeaux dogs. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2011, 52, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Patata, V.; Vezzosi, T.; Marchesotti, F.; Domenech, O. Echocardiographic parameters in 50 healthy English bulldogs: Preliminary reference intervals. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2021, 36, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sisson, D.; Schaeffer, D. Changes in linear dimensions of the heart, relative to body weight, as measured by M-mode echocardiography in growing dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1991, 52, 1591–1596. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Hamabe, L.; Shimada, K.; Mandour, A.S.; Yoshida, T.; Hirose, M.; Hendawy, H.; El-Husseiny, H.M.; Tanaka, R. Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function in Healthy Retrievers Using Standard and 2D Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Stephenson, H.; Fonfara, S.; Lopez-Alvarez, J.; Cripps, P.; Dukes-McEwan, J. Screening for dilated cardiomyopathy in Great Danes in the United Kingdom. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2012, 26, 1140–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Page, A.; Edmunds, G.; Atwell, R. Echocardiographic values in the Greyhound. Aust. Vet. J. 1993, 70, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Snyder, P.S.; Sato, T.; Atkins, C.E. A comparison of echocardiographic indices of the nonracing, healthy greyhound to reference values from other breeds. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound 1995, 36, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vörös, K.; Hetyey, C.; Reiczigel, J.; Czirok, G. M-mode and two-dimensional echocardiographic reference values for three Hungarian dog breeds: Hungarian Vizsla, Mudi and Hungarian Greyhound. Acta Vet. Hung. 2009, 57, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bodh, D.; Hoque, M.; Saxena, A.C. Echocardiographic study of healthy Indian Spitz dogs with normal reference ranges for the breed. Vet. World 2019, 12, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kayar, A.; Uysal, A. Determination of cardiac reference parameters using M-mode and 2-D echocardiographic techniques in adult Karabash dogs. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2004, 28, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gugjoo, M.B. Determination of Radiographic, Electrocardiographic, Echocardiographic and Haemato-biochemical Cardiac Reference Values in Labrador Retriever. Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gugjoo, M.; Hoque, M.; Saxena, A.; Zama, M.S.; Dey, S. Reference values of M-mode echocardiographic parameters and indices in conscious Labrador Retriever dogs. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2014, 15, 341. [Google Scholar]
  53. Saini, N.; Uppal, S.; Randhawa, C. Echocardiographic parameters and indices in healthy Labrador retriever dogs. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2017, 72, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  54. Tsai, C.H.; Huang, C.C.; Ho, C.C.; Claretti, M. Echocardiographic parameters and indices in 23 healthy Maltese dogs. J. Vet. Sci. 2021, 22, e60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ajibola, S.; Oyewale, J.; Oke, B.; Durotoye, L.; Adeliyi, T.; Rahman, S. Normal M-mode echocardiographic indices of Nigerian local dogs. J. Biol. Res.—Boll. Della Soc. Ital. Biol. Sper. 2017, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wiegel, P.S.; Nolte, I.; Mach, R.; Freise, F.; Bach, J.-P. Reference ranges for standard-echocardiography in pugs and impact of clinical severity of Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS) on echocardiographic parameters. BMC Vet. Res. 2022, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Seckerdieck, M.; Holler, P.; Smets, P.; Wess, G. Simpson’s method of discs in Salukis and Whippets: Echocardiographic reference intervals for end-diastolic and end-systolic left ventricular volumes. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2015, 17, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akasheva, D.U.; Plokhova, E.V.; Tkacheva, O.N.; Strazhesko, I.D.; Dudinskaya, E.N.; Kruglikova, A.S.; Pykhtina, V.S.; Brailova, N.V.; Pokshubina, I.A.; Sharashkina, N.V. Age-related left ventricular changes and their association with leukocyte telomere length in healthy people. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Haskins, S.C. Comparative cardiovascular and pulmonary effects of sedatives and anesthetic agents and anesthetic drug selection for the trauma patient. J. Vet. Emerg. Crit. Care 2006, 16, 300–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kellihan, H.; Stepien, R.; Hassen, K.; Smith, L. Sedative and echocardiographic effects of dexmedetomidine combined with butorphanol in healthy dogs. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2015, 17, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cruz-Benedetti, I.-C.; Bublot, I.; Ribas, T.; Fourel, I.; Vogl, C.; Dubois, C.; Milani, M.; Ida, K.K.; Portier, K. Pharmacokinetics of intramuscular alfaxalone and its echocardiographic, cardiopulmonary and sedative effects in healthy dogs. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Boon, J.; Wingfield, W.E.; Miller, C.W. Ecocardiohraphic indices in the normal dog. Vet. Radiol. 1983, 24, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lombard, C.W. Normal values of the canine M-mode echocardiogram. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1984, 45, 2015–2018. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gooding, J.P.; Robinson, W.F.; Mews, G.C. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular dimensions in clinically normal English cocker spaniels. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1986, 47, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Dukes-McEwan, J.; French, A.T.; Corcoran, B.M. Doppler echocardiography in the dog: Measurement variability and reproducibility. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound 2002, 43, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 13 02986 g001
Figure 1. Prisma 2020 flow diagram including searches in Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases.
Figure 1. Prisma 2020 flow diagram including searches in Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases.
Animals 13 02986 g001
Table 1. M-mode measurements of LV based on breed.
Table 1. M-mode measurements of LV based on breed.
BreedNo. of CasesAgeSexSedationIVSd mmLVIDd mmLVPWd mmIVSs mmLVIDs mmLVPWs mmStudy/
Reference
Afghan202–7 yearsM and FN-S8.0–12.033.0–52.07.0–11.08.0–18.020.0–37.09.0–18.0[19]
American Staffordshire Terrier571–10 yearsM and FN-S5.9–14.334.4–51.26.2–12.18.1–21.617.6–36.99.3–19.1[37]
Beagle2528 weeksMN-S5–1118–336–136–128–277–17[18]
25F6–821–326–127–129–239–13
Beagle64 monthsFS7.0 ± 1.321.2 ± 1.66.4 ± 1.410.9 ± 1.912.2 ± 1.810.4 ± 1.5[38]
67 months7.0 ± 1.125.5 ± 3.78.5 ± 1.711.0 ± 2.215.6 ± 2.011.5 ± 1.1
610 months8.5 ± 1.725.4 ± 2.08.8 ± 1.611.6 ± 1.915.7 ± 1.812.8 ± 1.9
613 months7.4 ± 1.927.6 ± 3.88.2 ± 1.612.2 ± 2.114.8 ± 2.413.3 ± 1.2
617 months8.7 ± 0.626.9 ± 4.99.2 ± 1.613.5 ± 1.916.1 ± 1.613.4 ± 1.5
621 months9.1 ± 1.427.6 ± 2.48.5 ± 0.713.5 ± 2.116.0 ± 3.112.5 ± 1.3
Border Collie202–12 yearsM and FN-S7.02–12.6624.27–41.354.94–15.178.19–13.6017.89–31.558.06–14.69[29]
Boxer812.1–11 yearsM and FN-S8.3–16.129.0–48.09.0–15.58.1–24.616.7–33.012.2–21.6[28]
Boxer371–14.5 yearsMN-S-40.8 ± 3.0--28.1 ± 3.9-[7]
481–10.8 yearsFN-S-38.0 ± 3.2--26.1 ± 3.0-
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel62≥12 monthsMN-S4.8–8.823.3–41.15.2–8.56.9–14.113.1–24.68.2–14.0[15]
72F4.8–8.221.4–34.74.9–8.47.0–14.010.9–21.07.8–14.8
Chihuahua25-M and F-5.2–6.515.83–18.535.1–6.16.95–8.229.01–11.526.6–8.12[14]
Chihuahua4710 months–7 yearsM and FN-S2.9–10.0013.6–23.93.0–6.6-6.5–13.4 [39]
Dachshund401–7 yearsM and F-4.6–7.821.6–34.55.2–8.66.7–10.811.1–21.17.2–12.0[40]
Dachshund99 months-16 yearsMN-S5.2–9.624.7–34.74.3–8.67.3–14.915.5–22.16.9–12.8[30]
32FN-S4.5–10.917.6–30.03.9–11.46.4–14.17.2–21.06.4–14.9
Dobermann Pinscher83–5 years--8.3 ± 1.241.6 ± 3.47.7 ± 1.211.8 ± 1.028.6 ± 2.512.2 ± 1.0[2]
Dogue de Bordeaux7 M and
24 F		12–22 monthsMN-S--12.1–12.3---[41]
FN-S--10.81–11.05---
22–36 monthsMN-S--12.56–12.7---
FN-S--11.1–11.38---
36–50 monthsMN-S--12.89–13---
FN-S--11.62–11.7---
50–85 monthsMN-S--13–13.2---
FN-S--11.82–12.54---
12–22 monthsM and FN-S10.14–12.49--12.41–16.38-14.32–17.61
22–36 months11.13–12.5--13.97–16.4-15.69–7.6
36–50 months11.71–13.1--14.91–17.1-16.51–18.27
50–85 months11.8–13.06--15.1–16.97-16.62–18.37
Dutch Shepherd53–5 years--10.1 ± 0.938.9 ± 8.89.8 ± 1.313.8 ± 1.524.8 ± 5.713.0 ± 1.7[2]
English Bull Terrier149–30 monthsM and FN-S6–1432–448–129–17kg (93 + 5)–kg (199 + 5)10–14[34]
English Bulldog501–14 yearsM and FN-S6.1–1531.2–45.57–14.79–18.218.8–2910.5–20[42]
English Pointer161 weekM and FN-S2.0 ± 0.29.0 ± 0.72.1 ± 0.33.5 ± 0.45.1 ± 0.94.0 ± 0.5[43]
162 weeks2.2 ± 0.511.9 ± 1.82.4 ± 0.44.1 ± 0.57.1 ± 1.14.5 ± 0.5
164 weeks3.2 ± 0.614.5 ± 1.73.0 ± 0.34.8 ± 0.58.9 ± 1.55.0 ± 0.6
168 weeks4.0 ± 0.620.3 ± 1.84.0 ± 0.66.4 ± 0.812.2 ± 1.66.9 ± 0.7
163 months4.8 ± 0.726.1 ± 2.04.7 ± 0.87.7 ± 0.616.6 ± 1.68.3 ± 0.8
166 months6.5 ± 0.835.8 ± 2.26.4 ± 0.79.9 ± 0.822.8 ± 2.210.6 ± 1.1
169 months7.0 ± 1.038.1 ± 2.27.0 ± 0.610.7 ± 1.324.5 ± 1.811.5 ± 1.2
1612 months6.9 ± 1.139.2 ± 2.47.1 ± 0.710.6 ± 1.025.3 ± 2.411.5 ± 1.3
English Setter10019–118 monthsM and FN-S6.6–12.832.7–55.66.9–127.1–1621.6–40.58.8–15.6[36]
Flat-Coated Retriever161–11 yearsM and FN-S8.59 ± 0.9340.70 ± 2.936.80–9.6011.82 ± 1.3728.42 ± 2.349.80–13.00[44]
French Bulldog421–10 yearsM and FN-S7.95 ± 0.9933.50 ± 4.126.20–7.6511.18 ± 1.6921.23 ± 3.5010.92 ± 1.41[35]
German Shepherd30-MN-S9.69 ± 1.52850.70 ± 4.9689.91 ± 1.29313.90 ± 1.72034.22 ± 3.56013.94 ± 1.183[25]
20-FN-S9.80 ± 1.35549.26 ± 4.4059.11 ± 1.14514.42 ± 1.52534.31 ± 3.15713.22 ± 1.046
-1–2 years-N-S9.93 ± 1.35749.48 ± 4.4169.73 ± 1.14914.37 ± 1.52833.76 ± 3.16513.54 ± 1.051
-3 years-N-S10.04 ± 1.32150.01 ± 4.2959.34 ± 1.11914.30 ± 1.48734.01 ± 3.07913.40 ± 1.022
-4 years-N-S9.27 ± 1.34049.99 ± 4.3619.70 ± 1.13413.92 ± 1.50933.79 ± 3.12813.80 ± 1.038
->5 years–8 years-N-S9.74 ± 1.44250.43 ± 4.6979.27 ± 1.22214.04 ± 1.62535.51 ± 3.36413.58 ± 1.116
German Shepherd601–5 yearsM and F-9.6 ± 0.941.7 ± 5.08.8 ± 1.114 ± 0.931 ± 5.113 ± 1.2[26]
German Shepherd103–5 years--10.7 ± 1.741.1 ± 4.59.3 ± 1.014.4 ± 1.526.4 ± 4.812.7 ± 1.5[2]
Golden Retriever202–7 yearsM and FN-S8.0–13.037.0–51.08.0–12.010.0–17.018.0–35.010.0–19.0[19]
Golden Retriever161–11 yearsM and FN-S10.06 ± 1.1739.89 ± 3.438.00–15.3314.21 ± 1.4526.67 ± 3.1511.80–19.40[44]
Great Dane151–6 yearsM and FN-S12–1644–5910–1614–1934–4511–19[32]
Great Dane1448–143 monthsMN-S-53.6--38.6-[45]
26FN-S-49.5--35.6-
Greyhound161–4 yearsM and FS9–1436–4910–1511–1627–3713–18[46]
16N-S8–1440–499–1410–1729–3812–18
Greyhound115.5 ± 2.5 yearsM and FN-S10–1640–508–13 28–36 [47]
Greyhound2018 months–9 yearsM and FS11.942.712.9 [33]
Hungarian Greyhound221–11 yearsM and FN-S8.6–15.537.6–50.49.8–15.610.1–19.521.7–33.312.9–19.3[48]
Hungarian Vizsla456 months–10 yearsM and FN-S7.1–14.030.2–52.38.4–15.58.8–16.618.4–36.410.4–20.2[48]
Indian Spitz123–5 yearsMN-S6–1031–477–108–1719–2910–15[49]
12 FN-S7–929–426–1013–1719–2910–14
Indonesian Mongrel42–5 yearsM-6.15–6.5726.17–30.616.37–9.298.63–9.5713.67–17.558.93–12.07[5]
5F-5.76–6.5422.32–30.246.69–7.878.08–8.7813.45–20.2910.89–11.35
Irish Wolfhound201–9 yearsM and FN-S9–14.546–599–1311–1733–4511–17[32]
Irish Wolfhound26212 months–8.5 yearsM and FN-S5.5–13.542.7–65.56.6–13.88.1–1925.4–41.59.7–21.3[24]
Italian Greyhound2018 months–7 yearsM and FS6.422.27.1---[33]
Kangal252–6 yearsM 10.6 ± 1.2855.8 ± 5.0411.0 ± 1.5215.3 ± 1.4339.9 ± 4.2916.2 ± 1.34[50]
25F 10.1 ± 0.9655.0 ± 4.179.4 ± 0.8814.9 ± 1.1938.9 ± 3.6114.2 ± 1.39
Labrador Retriever----5.6–13.527.00–45.306.20–11.309.10–16.6014.50–36.808.10–20.9[51]
Labrador Retriever1216 months–4 yearsMN-S5.6–12.529.4–45.36.8–11.38.1–20.814.5–36.89.4–14.7[52]
12-FN-S6.0–13.530.4–42.66.2–10.310.2–15.321.0–30.89.1–14.6
Labrador Retriever18-MN-S11.1 ± 0.539.3 ± 0.98.8 ± 0.313.5 ± 0.727.5 ± 0.811.7 ± 0.4[53]
13-FN-S11.1 ± 0.636.5 ± 1.08.7 ± 0.413.2 ± 0.824.8 ± 1.011.8 ± 0.5
61–2 years-N-S10.8 ± 0.837.6 ± 1.58.1 ± 0.512.6 ± 1.227.6 ± 1.410.3 ± 0.7
102–3 years-N-S9.9 ± 0.637.9 ± 1.28.6 ± 0.412.6 ± 0.926.8 ± 1.111.0 ± 0.6
83–5 years-N-S12.9 ± 0.639.7 ± 1.18.8 ± 0.415.9 ± 0.925.6 ± 1.013.4 ± 0.5
7>5 years-N-S10.8 ± 0.736.2 ± 1.49.4 ± 0.512.3 ± 1.124.5 ± 1.312.4 ± 0.6
Labrador Retriever141–12 yearsM and FN-S9.60 ± 1.9540.61 ± 2.917.00–14.0013.91 ± 2.5227.93 ± 2.4910.00–21.50[44]
Labrador Retriever133–5 years--9.6 ± 1.239.7 ± 3.08.5 ± 1.113.6 ± 1.625.6 ± 3.413.1 ± 1.3[2]
Malinois Belgian Shepherd123–5 years--10.1 ± 0.938.9 ± 8.89.8 ± 1.313.8 ± 1.524.8 ± 5.713.0 ± 1.7[2]
Maltese dog232–6 yearsM and FN-S3.70–6.5015.80–29.403.70–6.205.50–10.108.30–19.005.60–9.40[54]
Miniature Poodle202–7 yearsM and FN-S4.0–6.016.0–28.04.0–6.06.0–10.08.0–16.06.0–10.0[19]
Mudi281–12 yearsM and FN-S6.6–10.428.4–41.07.0–11.37.2–12.817.7–27.48.2–15.6[48]
New Foundland271–11 yearsM and FN-S7–1544–608–1311–2029–4411–16[32]
Nigerian local dogs20>1 year-N-S9–1815–275–1314–236–149–21[55]
North American Saluki83>12 monthsM and FN-S7.00–14.0036.67–55.357.47–11.5110.00–18.0025.00–42.5810.00–16.77[20]
Papillon4-M and F-6.79–7.6317.10–19.856.92–7.77.88–8.9710.67–10.959.28–9.45[14]
Pug BOAS -21Over 24 monthsM and FN-S5.7–10.921.1–31.06.6–10.28.2–12.510.2–22.48.9–14.1[56]
Pug BOAS +21M and FN-S5.5–12.819.4–31.96.6–9.48.2–14.814.6–24.34.4–13.4
Saluki110≥12 monthsM and FN-S7.7–13.833.0–47.38.4–12.98.9–15.723.2–39.810.1–17.1[57]
Spanish Mastiff131 month-N-S4.92 ± 0.1516.60 ± 0.274.73 ± 0.167.81 ± 0.198.65 ± 0.297.61 ± 0.21[31]
192 months-N-S5.97 ± 0.1524.82 ± 0.715.76 ± 0.149.41 ± 0.2415 ± 0.379.24 ± 0.20
203 months-N-S7.04 ± 0.2228.29 ± 0.737.02 ± 0.2510.88 ± 0.3818.67 ± 0.5810.69 ± 0.39
104 months-N-S7.20 ± 0.2635.50 ± 0.606.60 ± 0.3411.30 ± 0.2122.70 ± 0.579.97 ± 0.37
115 months-N-S7.86 ± 0.4136.77 ± 0.807.09 ± 0.3612.09 ± 0.5124.84 ± 0.3811.23 ± 0.54
106 months-N-S8.15 ± 0.2141.95 ± 1.207.60 ± 0.2912.80 ± 0.3327.55 ± 0.8611.70 ± 0.45
107 months-N-S8.35 ± 0.2542.75 ± 0.537.95 ± 0.3013.05 ± 0.3727.58 ± 0.5512.25 ± 0.44
108 months-N-S8.80 ± 0.1744.01 ± 1.258.25 ± 0.1713.85 ± 0.3328.26 ± 1.0113 ± 0.22
109 months-N-S9.35 ± 0.3644.61 ± 1.829.05 ± 0.3814.35 ± 0.5429.21 ± 0.8813.80 ± 0.51
1010 months-N-S10.63 ± 0.4246.05 ± 2.1110.10 ± 0.4215.73 ± 0.5427.51 ± 1.4114.75 ± 0.50
1111 months-N-S10.76 ± 0.3247.20 ± 0.889.71 ± 0.2816.25 ± 0.4829.41 ± 0.8314.71 ± 0.44
1012 months-N-S11.83 ± 0.4747.31 ± 1.0910.80 ± 0.5217.90 ± 0.6129.70 ± 1.1416.30 ± 0.72
12Over 13 months (2–4 years)-N-S9.76 ± 0.4247.72 ± 1.359.71 ± 0.3615.64 ± 0.5029.01 ± 1.0515.17 ± 0.43
Toy Poodle403–9 yearsM and F-5.5–6.716.49–20.025.0–6.47.23–9.308.99–11.177.30–8.87[14]
Welsh Corgi202–7 yearsM and FN-S6.0–9.028.0–40.06.0–10.010.0–14.012.0–23.08.0–13.0[19]
Whippet2018 months–7 yearsM and FS8,635.99 [33]
Whippet10510–169 monthsM and FN-S7.1–12.925.7–47.56.4–11.59.0–15.517.0–36.18.6–17.2[27]
Whippet119≥12 monthsM and FN-S6.3–12.626.8–43.36.1–12.17.8–14.518.8–35.09.1–16.0[57]
Yorkshire73–9 yearsM and F-4.69–6.1018.81–19.124.95–5.57.9–9.19.47–11.137.32–8.53[14]
M—male, F—female, N-S—non-sedated, S—sedated, IVSd—interventricular septum in diastole, LVIDd—left ventricular internal diameter in diastole, LVPWd—left ventricular posterior wall in diastole, IVSs—interventricular septum in systole, LVIDs—left ventricular internal diameter in systole, LVPWs—left ventricular posterior wall in systole, BOAS—Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cerbu, M.; Cerbu, C.; Papuc, I. M-Mode Echocardiography in Canine Veterinary Practice: A Comprehensive Review of Left Ventricular Measurements in 44 Different Dog Breeds. Animals 2023, 13, 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182986

AMA Style

Cerbu M, Cerbu C, Papuc I. M-Mode Echocardiography in Canine Veterinary Practice: A Comprehensive Review of Left Ventricular Measurements in 44 Different Dog Breeds. Animals. 2023; 13(18):2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182986

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cerbu, Maria, Constantin Cerbu, and Ionel Papuc. 2023. "M-Mode Echocardiography in Canine Veterinary Practice: A Comprehensive Review of Left Ventricular Measurements in 44 Different Dog Breeds" Animals 13, no. 18: 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182986

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop