Table 4.

Lake Louise criteria

Study	Field strength	Validation	Myocarditis (n)	Control (n)	Acute versus chronic cardiac inflammation	Control group	CMR sequences	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Diagnostic accuracy (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)
Abdel-Aty et al. J Am Col Cardiol [3, 22]	1.5 T	Clinical	25	23	Acute	Healthy Participants	ER, gRE, LGE	76	96	86	95	79
Gutberlet et al. Radiology [23]	1.5 T	EMB	48	35	Chronic	Other diagnoses	ER, gRE, LGE	63	89	74	88	63
Voigt et al. Eur Radiol [25]	1.5 T	EMB	12	11	Chronic	No inflammation on EMB	ER, gRE, LGE	75	73	74	75	73
Lurz et al. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging [26]a	1.5 T	EMB	53	17	Acute	Other diagnoses	ER, gRE, LGE	81	71	79	90	55
Lurz et al. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging [26]a	1.5 T	EMB	30	32	Chronic	Other diagnoses	ER, gRE, LGE	63	40	51	53	50
Chu et al. Int J Cardiovasc Im [27]	1.5 T	Clinical	35	10	Acute	Healthy Participants	Qualitative T2w assessment, gRE, LGE	77	90	80	96%	53
Radunski et al. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging [31]	1.5 T	Clinical	104	21	Mostly Acute	Healthy Participants	ER, MSE, LGE	84	57	79	90	41
Luetkens et al. Radiology [32]	3 T	Clinical	24	42	Acute	Healthy Participants	ER, gRE, LGE	92	80	85	79	92
Schwab et al. Rofo [33]	1.5 T	Clinical	43	35	Acute	Healthy Participants	Qualitative T2w assessment, qualitative EGE assessment, LGE	67	100	82	100	72
Luetkens et al. Eur H J Cardiovasc im [35]	1.5 T	Clinical	34	50	Acute	Healthy Participants	ER, gRE, LGE	82	98	92	97	89
Pooled data			408	276				77	81	79	86	70
Chronic inflammation only								65	67	66	69	62
Acute inflammation only								80	87	83	91	73
Healthy participants as control								80	89	84	91	75
Other diagnoses as controls								71	67	69	77	60

DCM dilated cardiomyopathy, ER oedema ratio, EMB endomyocardial biopsy, gRE global relative enhancement, MSE myocardial signal enhancement, NPV negative predictive value, PPV positive predictive value, T1w T1 weighted, T2w T2 weighted

^aOne study examining two groups of patients with acute and chronic cardiac inflammation