Association of late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance with mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) flow chart. The flow diagram depicts study selection for inclusion in the meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

• 

  Figure 2. Association between late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and mortality. LGE was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3–3.8; P < .01). There was low heterogeneity (χ232 = 51.26; P = .017; I2 = 37%).

• 

  Figure 3. Association between late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and ventricular arrhythmias/sudden cardiac death. LGE was associated with an increased risk for the combined incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death, and appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks (odds ratio 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5–6.0; P < .01). Heterogeneity was low to moderate (χ245 = 82.2; P = .001; I2 =45%).

• 

  Figure 4. Association between late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and heart failure hospitalization. LGE was associated with an increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3–5.0; P < .01). The heterogeneity was moderate (χ221 = 49.5; P = .001; I2 = 57%).

• 

  Figure 5. Association between late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and referral for heart transplantation. LGE was associated with increased referral for heart transplantation (odds ratio 5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–10.4; P < .01). The heterogeneity was low (χ29 = 4; P = .87; I2 = 0%).

• 

  Figure 6. Association between late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and ejection fraction improvement to >35%. LGE was associated with an increased risk for lack of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction to >35% (odds ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03–0.85; P = .03). The heterogeneity was moderate to high (χ24 = 30; P = .001; I2 = 86%).