Table 1.

Overview of CMR parameters and their limitations in risk assessment for SCD.

Parameter	Key Points	Limitation
LGE	Visualization of myocardial fibrosis as substrate for VA Presence as idependent predictor for VA and SCD Contradictory findings concerning role of extent, localization, and pattern	Contraindications to contrast agent use Different methods to define presence of scar Different methods to quantify scar extent
T1 mapping/ECV	Marker of diffuse fibrosis Higher native T1 values are associated with arrhythmic endpoints Applicable independent of renal function	Susceptibility to confounding variables during acquisition, e.g., gadolinium dose, rate of injection Lack of standardization of mapping techniques Lack of standardization of post-processing techniques Vendor-dependent cut-off values Overlap with T1 values of normal myocardium in early disease stages of NICM
Strain imaging	Parameter for myocardial deformation and function Impaired strain asssociated with adverse outcome	Lack of validation for some strain assessment methods Method and software specific cut-off values Lack of reliability concerning some strain parameters, e.g., radial and segmental strain Lack of larger studies Lack of studies focusing solely on arrhythmic endpoints