Utility of Left and Right Ventricular Strain in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Prospective Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND: Imaging evaluation of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) remains challenging. Myocardial strain assessment by echocardiography is an increasingly utilized technique for detecting subclinical left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic utility of LV and RV strain in ARVC.METHODS: Patients with suspected ARVC (n = 109) from a multicenter registry were clinically phenotyped using the 2010 ARVC Revised Task Force Criteria and underwent baseline strain echocardiography. Diagnostic performance of LV and RV strain was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis against the 2010 ARVC Revised Task Force Criteria, and the prognostic value was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier analysis.RESULTS: Mean age was 45.3 +/- 14.7 years, and 48% of patients were female. Estimation of RV strain was feasible in 99/109 (91%), and LV strain was feasible in 85/109 (78%) patients. ARVC prevalence by 2010 ARVC Revised Task Force Criteria is 91/109 (83%) and 83/99 (84%) in those with RV strain measurements. RV global longitudinal strain and RV free wall strain had diagnostic area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 and 0.77, respectively (both P<0.001; difference NS). Abnormal RV global longitudinal strain phenotype (RV global longitudinal strain > -17.9%) and RV free wall strain phenotype (RV free wall strain > -21.2%) were identified in 41/69 (59%) and 56/69 (81%) of subjects, respectively, who were not identified by conventional echocardiographic criteria but still met the overall 2010 ARVC Revised Task Force Criteria for ARVC. LV global longitudinal strain did not add diagnostic value but was prognostic for composite end points of death, heart transplantation, or ventricular arrhythmia (log-rank P=0.04).CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, multicenter registry of ARVC, RV strain assessment added diagnostic value to current echocardiographic criteria by identifying patients who are missed by current echocardiographic criteria yet still fulfill the diagnosis of ARVC. LV strain, by contrast, did not add incremental diagnostic value but was prognostic for identification of high-risk patients.