Prognostic CMR predictors of adverse outcomes in patients with suspected ARVC

Monica Deac,Joyce Wong,Fariba Fanaie,Dana Dawson,Adelle Dawson,Rory O'Hanlon,Chris Miller,Dudley J Pennell,Michael Roughton,Raj Vimal,Sanjay K Prasad,Isabelle Roussin

doi:10.1186/1532-429x-12-s1-o6

Monica Deac, Joyce Wong + Show 10 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429x-12-s1-o6

Copy DOI

Abstract

Background ARVC is one of the commonest causes of sudden cardiac death amongst people younger than 30 years. Establishing the diagnosis still remains a difficult task, since there is as yet no single non-invasive gold standard test to confirm it. It is therefore essential to identify within a population with suspected ARVC, a subset who will indeed be at a higher risk of developing the disease, and thus at a higher risk of MACE. Imaging criteria that are most commonly studied include right ventricular volumes, ejection fraction and regional wall motion abnormalities. We sought to determine which imaging parameters were better predictors of worse clinical outcomes.

Highlights

arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is one of the commonest causes of sudden cardiac death amongst people younger than 30 years
It is essential to identify within a population with suspected ARVC, a subset who will be at a higher risk of developing the disease, and at a higher risk of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE)
Scans were abnormal if RV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV) was increased, or RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was decreased, or late gadolinium enhancement of the LV

Summary

Background

ARVC is one of the commonest causes of sudden cardiac death amongst people younger than 30 years. Establishing the diagnosis still remains a difficult task, since there is as yet no single non-invasive gold standard test to confirm it. It is essential to identify within a population with suspected ARVC, a subset who will be at a higher risk of developing the disease, and at a higher risk of MACE. Imaging criteria that are most commonly studied include right ventricular volumes, ejection fraction and regional wall motion abnormalities. We sought to determine which imaging parameters were better predictors of worse clinical outcomes

Methods

Results

Conclusion