Skip to main content

Table 1 Clinical Impact of CMR on Diagnosis of ARVD/C vs. Alternative Diagnoses

From: Clinical impact of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in evaluation for possible arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy

n=311

2010 Guidelines without CMR Findings, n (%)

2010 Guidelines with CMR Findings, n (%)

Definite Criteria for ARVD/C

1 (0.3)

6 (2)

Borderline Criteria for ARVD/C

1 (0.3)

5 (2)

Possible Criteria for ARVD/C

18 (5.8)

9 (3)

Patients with 1 or no Minor Criteria, not meeting 2010 Guidelines Definition of \"Definite\", \"Borderline\" or \"Possible\"

291 (93.6)

51 (16)

Alternate Diagnosis*

76 (24)

RV Enlargement Alone**

164 (53)

Normal RV***

  1. * Alternative Diagnosis Resulting in Change in Management included 6 (1.9%) Intracardiac shunts, other Cardiomyopathy or RV Overload State 36 (11.5%), or Other Diagnosis 9 (2.8%)
  2. **RV Enlargement Alone with normal RV Function and Regional Wall Motion
  3. *** Normal RV Function, Size and Regional Wall Motion by CMR