Skip to content
Echo ReferenceLV Volume Normal Values & Ejection Fraction
Echo Reference — Chamber Quantification

LV Volume Normal Values, Ejection Fraction & GLS

Adult LVEDVi, LVESVi and LVEF normal ranges and severity partitions by sex, with 3D and ultrasound-enhancing-agent values, global longitudinal strain cut-offs, and practical measurement pitfalls.

Reviewed by Dr Reza Moazzeni, MD FRACP · Consultant Cardiologist
Last medically reviewed: July 2026

Left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVi), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are most commonly measured by the biplane method of discs, or modified Simpson's method. The tables below give adult normal reference ranges and severity partitions by sex, followed by 3D and ultrasound-enhancing-agent (contrast) values, global longitudinal strain reference values, and the measurement pitfalls that most often distort them.

Normal LVEDVi, LVESVi and LVEF by Simpson's Biplane Method

Volumes are traced from apical four-chamber and two-chamber views, then indexed to body surface area. Trace the compacted endocardial border, excluding papillary muscles and trabeculae from the blood-pool cavity. Values below are the ASE/EACVI 2015 adult 2D biplane reference ranges. For linear dimensions, wall thickness and LV mass, see LV dimensions and mass reference values.

Ejection Fraction
LVEF = (LVEDV − LVESV) ÷ LVEDV × 100
Expressed as a percentage
Stroke Volume
SV = LVEDV − LVESV
Total SV — not forward SV when regurgitation is present
Indexing
LVEDVi = LVEDV ÷ BSA
BSA by DuBois or Mosteller

Men

Swipe table to see all columns →
Parameter Normal Mildly abnormal Moderately abnormal Severely abnormal
LVEDVi (mL/m²) 34 – 74 75 – 89 90 – 100 > 100
LVESVi (mL/m²) 11 – 31 32 – 38 39 – 45 > 45
LVEF (%) 52 – 72 41 – 51 30 – 40 < 30

Women

Swipe table to see all columns →
Parameter Normal Mildly abnormal Moderately abnormal Severely abnormal
LVEDVi (mL/m²) 29 – 61 62 – 70 71 – 80 > 80
LVESVi (mL/m²) 8 – 24 25 – 32 33 – 40 > 40
LVEF (%) 54 – 74 41 – 53 30 – 40 < 30
Interpretation of severity grades: The normal ranges are guideline reference values for adults. The mild, moderate and severe partitions are consensus-based rather than outcome-derived, and should be read alongside sex, body size, age, loading conditions, image quality and the underlying cardiac condition. They are not disease-independent intervention thresholds. Female LV volume partitions in particular may be conservative in some populations.
Supranormal LVEF: The upper bounds of the normal LVEF range (72% in men, 74% in women) are reference limits, not abnormality thresholds. An LVEF above the reference range is not graded as abnormal by these tables, though a hyperdynamic ventricle warrants attention to loading conditions, cavity size and outflow tract gradients.

Measurement Technique

Frame selection

End-diastole is taken at the largest LV volume, or the first frame after mitral valve closure. End-systole is taken at the smallest LV volume, or the frame after aortic valve closure. Average approximately three cardiac cycles in sinus rhythm, and at least five representative cycles in atrial fibrillation where feasible.

Tracing convention

Trace the compacted endocardial border. Papillary muscles and trabeculae are excluded from the blood-pool cavity. Avoid apical foreshortening — use off-axis or lower intercostal windows if needed to maximise LV long-axis length, and confirm the apex is not truncated before accepting the trace.

Severe primary mitral regurgitation: In chronic severe primary MR, an LVEF ≤ 60% represents LV systolic dysfunction and is a guideline threshold for intervention, alongside LVESD ≥ 40 mm or LVESDi ≥ 20 mm/m² (2025 ESC/EACTS). This threshold should not be applied in the same way to moderate MR, or to ventricular or atrial secondary MR. See mitral regurgitation severity grading.

EF Classification by Heart Failure Phenotype

LVEF contributes to heart failure classification, prognosis and treatment selection, but does not establish the diagnosis by itself. These thresholds are used across ESC, AHA/ACC/HFSA and NHFA guidelines.

LVEF Classification Abbreviation
≤ 40% Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction HFrEF
41 – 49% Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction HFmrEF
≥ 50% Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction HFpEF
Previous ≤ 40%, now > 40% Heart failure with improved ejection fraction HFimpEF
Diagnostic caveat: EF alone does not diagnose heart failure. HFmrEF and HFpEF require additional objective evidence of cardiac dysfunction — typically elevated natriuretic peptides or echocardiographic evidence of raised filling pressures, assessed using diastolic function criteria or the 2025 ASE diastolic function calculator. Patients meeting HFimpEF criteria should generally continue HFrEF therapy despite the improvement in EF.

Pitfalls of EF by Simpson's Biplane

Pitfall Effect
Foreshortened apical views Underestimates true LV length → underestimates volumes → may overestimate EF
Poor endocardial definition (≥ 2 contiguous segments) Inaccurate tracing → unreliable volumes. Use an ultrasound-enhancing agent or 3D instead
Inconsistent tracing convention Papillary muscle and trabecular handling varies by operator and software → affects cavity volume and EF reproducibility
Limited representation of regional dysfunction The biplane method samples only two planes — abnormal geometry or wall motion outside these planes is not captured. See 17-segment model and coronary territories
2D vs 3D vs CMR discrepancy 2D Simpson's systematically underestimates volumes compared with 3D and CMR

When to Use Which Method

Method When to use
2D Simpson's biplane Standard method when image quality is adequate and endocardial borders are well seen
UEA-enhanced (contrast) 2D When ≥ 2 contiguous endocardial segments are not visualised. Improves accuracy and reproducibility
3D echocardiography Preferred when available — fewer geometric assumptions, better reproducibility, closer agreement with CMR. Favoured for serial monitoring
CMR Reference standard for ventricular volumes and EF. Use when echo is suboptimal or discrepant with the clinical picture, or when EF sits near a major management cut-point such as a device decision

3D and UEA-Enhanced (Contrast) LV Volumes

3D echocardiography makes fewer geometric assumptions and is more reproducible than 2D methods, with volumes closer to CMR. Upper reference limits differ from the Simpson's biplane values above and should not be used interchangeably with them.

3D Echocardiography — ASE/EACVI 2015 Upper Reference Limits

Parameter Men Women
3D LVEDVi (mL/m²) < 79 < 71
3D LVESVi (mL/m²) < 32 < 28
Population variation: More recent WASE 3D normal-values data demonstrate meaningful variation in LV volumes according to age, sex and race or nationality. Vendor, acquisition quality and analysis software version should also be taken into account when applying a single upper reference limit.

Ultrasound-Enhancing Agent (Contrast) Echocardiography

Parameter Men Women
UEA-enhanced LVEDVi (mL/m²) — proposed < 98 < 83
Method-specific values: UEA-enhanced LV volumes are systematically larger than unenhanced 2D volumes because opacified blood fills the spaces between trabeculations up to the compacted myocardium, delineating the endocardial border more completely. The 2018 ASE guideline update states that the 2015 chamber quantification ranges should be applied with caution to enhanced studies and that dedicated enhanced reference ranges remain to be established. The limits above are proposed cut-offs only — they are not a guideline-endorsed reference range, and enhanced and unenhanced volumes should not be compared as though obtained by the same technique.

Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS)

GLS is measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography from apical four-chamber, two-chamber and three-chamber views. It is reported as a negative value, with more negative values indicating better longitudinal function; absolute values are conventionally used for grading.

GLS Normal Borderline Abnormal
Absolute value > 18% 16 – 18% < 16%
Signed value More negative than −18% −16% to −18% Less negative than −16%
Attribution and vendor variability: These cut-offs follow the 2025 ASE/EACVI clinical consensus statement on strain echocardiography. GLS remains vendor- and software-dependent; some manufacturers report myocardial and others endocardial strain, the latter approximately 1% greater in absolute magnitude. Serial studies should use the same platform and, ideally, the same software version.

Serial Change in GLS

Setting Relative change considered meaningful
General longitudinal monitoring Approximately 10 – 15% relative change, depending on image quality and measurement reproducibility
Cardio-oncology (CTRCD criterion) ≥ 15% relative reduction from baseline

In patients receiving potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapy, a relative GLS reduction of ≥ 15% from baseline — even when the absolute GLS remains above 16% — should prompt cardiology review. GLS decline may precede a measurable reduction in LVEF and can identify subclinical dysfunction during surveillance. See echocardiography in cardio-oncology for the full surveillance protocol.

GLS Regional Patterns — Clinical Significance

GLS is not only a global number — the regional strain distribution provides diagnostic clues, and the bull's-eye plot should be reviewed for characteristic patterns.

Pattern Description Consider
Apical sparing Reduced basal and mid-ventricular strain with preserved apical strain — quantitatively, mean apical longitudinal strain more than twice the mean of the remaining segments Raises suspicion for cardiac amyloidosis, particularly when LV wall thickness is increased. Not diagnostic or specific in isolation — also reported in other hypertrophic phenotypes, aortic stenosis and advanced renal disease. See unexplained LV hypertrophy
Basal-to-mid predominant reduction Reduced strain in basal and mid segments with relatively preserved apical function Hypertensive heart disease / pressure-loading phenotype
Territorial pattern Reduced strain confined to a single coronary artery territory Coronary artery disease — regional ischaemia or prior infarction
Globally reduced, preserved EF Diffusely reduced strain (< 16 – 18%) with LVEF ≥ 50% Subclinical LV systolic dysfunction — early cardiotoxicity, HFpEF, early cardiomyopathy
Septal systolic stretch / septal flash Early septal shortening with delayed lateral wall contraction on strain curves LBBB-related mechanical dyssynchrony — relevant to CRT evaluation rather than routine aetiological interpretation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a normal LV end-diastolic volume index?

By 2D Simpson's biplane in adults, normal LVEDVi is 34–74 mL/m² in men and 29–61 mL/m² in women. Upper reference limits are higher for 3D echocardiography (79 mL/m² in men, 71 mL/m² in women) and higher again for ultrasound-enhancing-agent studies, so the method used must be stated alongside the value.

What is a normal LV end-systolic volume index?

Normal LVESVi by 2D Simpson's biplane is 11–31 mL/m² in men and 8–24 mL/m² in women. The corresponding 3D upper reference limits are 32 mL/m² in men and 28 mL/m² in women.

What is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction?

Normal LVEF is 52–72% in men and 54–74% in women. LVEF is calculated as (LVEDV − LVESV) ÷ LVEDV × 100. Values of 41–51% in men and 41–53% in women are mildly abnormal, 30–40% moderately abnormal, and below 30% severely abnormal.

When should 3D or contrast echocardiography be used instead of Simpson's biplane?

Use an ultrasound-enhancing agent when two or more contiguous endocardial segments are not adequately visualised, or whenever quantitative LVEF is important to prognosis or management. Use 3D echocardiography where available, particularly for serial monitoring, because it makes fewer geometric assumptions and agrees more closely with CMR. Reference ranges differ between all three methods and are not interchangeable.

Echocardiography, including strain imaging and ultrasound-enhancing-agent studies, is performed on site at Westmead. See echocardiogram in Westmead for referral information.
References
  1. Lang RM, et al. Recommendations for Cardiac Chamber Quantification by Echocardiography in Adults: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28:1–39.
  2. Asch FM, et al; WASE Investigators. Similarities and Differences in Left Ventricular Size and Function among Races and Nationalities: Results of the World Alliance Societies of Echocardiography Normal Values Study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019;32(11):1396–1406.
  3. Addetia K, et al; WASE Investigators. Normal Values of Left Ventricular Size and Function on Three-Dimensional Echocardiography: Results of the World Alliance Societies of Echocardiography Study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2022;35(5):449–459.
  4. Porter TR, et al. Clinical Applications of Ultrasonic Enhancing Agents in Echocardiography: 2018 American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Update. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018;31(3):241–274.
  5. Heidenreich PA, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895–e1032.
  6. Thomas JD, et al. Clinical Applications of Strain Echocardiography: A Clinical Consensus Statement from the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration with the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2025;38(11):985–1020.
  7. Praz F, et al. 2025 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2025;46:4635–4736.