Long term CMR follow up of patients with right ventricular abnormality and clinically suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC)

BACKGROUND: The Task Force Criteria (TFC) for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) was updated in 2010 to improve specificity. There was concern however that the revised cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) criteria was too restrictive and not sensitive enough to detect early forms of the condition. We previously described patients with clinically suspected ARVC who satisfied criteria from non-imaging TFC categories and fulfilled parameters from the original but not the revised CMR criteria; as a result, these patients were not confirmed as definite ARVC but may represent an early phenotype. METHODS: Patients scanned between 2008 and 2015 who had either right ventricular (RV) dilatation or regional dyskinesia satisfying at least minor imaging parameters from the original criteria and without contra-indication underwent serial CMR scanning using a 1.5 T scanner. The aims were to assess the risk of progressive RV abnormalities, evaluate the accuracy of the revised CMR criteria and the need for guideline directed CMR surveillance in at-risk individuals. RESULTS: Overall, 48 patients were re-scanned; 24 had a first-degree relative diagnosed with ARVC using the revised TFC or a first-degree relative with premature sudden death from suspected ARVC and 24 patients had either left bundle branch morphology ventricular tachycardia or > 500 ventricular extra-systoles in 24-h. Mean follow up was 69+/− 25 months. The indexed RV end-diastolic, end-systolic volumes and ejection fraction were calculated for both scans. There was significant reduction in RV volumes and improvement in RV ejection fraction (EF) irrespective of changes to body surface area; − 11.7+/− 15.2 mls/m(2), − 6.4+/− 10.5 mls/m(2) and + 3.3 +/− 7.9% (p = 0.01, 0.01 and 0.04). Applying the RV parameters to the revised CMR criteria, two patients from the family history group (one with confirmed ARVC and one with a premature death) had progressive RV abnormalities satisfying major criteria. The remaining patients (n = 46) did not satisfy the criteria and either had normal RV parameters with regression of structural abnormalities (27,56.3%) or stable abnormalities (19,43.7%). CONCLUSION: The revised CMR criteria represents a robust tool in the evaluation of patients with clinical suspicion of ARVC, especially for those with ventricular arrhythmias without a family history for ARVC. For patients with RV abnormalities that do not fulfill the revised criteria but have a family history of ARVC or an ARVC associated gene mutation, a surveillance CMR scan should be considered as part of the clinical follow up protocol.