O 3.9 , 95 confidence interval). A high CI-1011 site correlation was found between LV-EF and LGE extent (Pearson r = -0.797, p < 0.001; Figure 1A). Moreover, there was a significant relationship between the pattern of LGE and the degree of LV systolic dysfunction: 90 of the patients with transmural LGE and 100 of the patients with mixed LGE demonstrated a LV-EF <55 in comparison to only 46 of patients with isolated subepicardial LGE (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between DMD and BMD regarding LGE prevalence (p = 1.00) and extent (p = 0.37). However, there was a significant difference in the distribution of LGE pattern between BMD and DMD, the latter patients presenting more frequently with isolated subepicardial LGE (p = 0.037).Occurrence and distribution of endpointsoccurred: two deaths (of which one was cardiac) and one heart transplantation. Additionally, 22 secondary endpoints were observed in 21 patients (one patient experienced occurrence of two secondary endpoints at the same time): 8 heart failure hospitalizations, 1 sustained VT episode and 13 non-sustained VT episodes. Thus, a secondary endpoint occurred in 24 (N = 21) of patients at a mean time to event of 28 ?18 mo (IQR 15 to 41 mo) since study inclusion.Relationship between CMR findings and secondary endpoint occurrenceAs shown in Table 3, during a mean total follow-up of 47 ?18mo (IQR 37 to 57 mo) three primary endpointsTable 2 Overview of CMR findingsTotal (N = 88) LV-EDV index, ml/m2 LV-ESV index, ml/m2 LV mass index, mg/m2 LV-EF, LV-EF <55 , n ( ) RV-EDV index, ml/m2 RV-ESV index, ml/m2 RV-EF, LGE presence, n ( ) LGE extent, Transmural LGE, n ( ) 80 (62?04) 33 (24?6) 58 ?16 53 ?14 45 (51) 63 (51?8) 30 (23?6) 53 ?10 56 (64) 16 ?13 (n = 56) 20 (23)Table 4 shows CMR findings in patients with (N = 21) and without (N = 67) a secondary endpoint. Patients with secondary endpoints had significantly higher LV-EDV (p < 0.001), LV-ESV (p < 0.001), LV mass indexes (p < 0.001) and significantly lower LV-EF (p < 0.001) than patients without a secondary endpoint (Figure 1B). In addition, LGE presence (p < 0.001) and extent (p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with a secondary endpoint (Figure 1C). Moreover, isolated subepicardial LGE was more frequently seen in patients without events whereas a transmural pattern of LGE was a common finding in patients with a secondary endpoint (Figure 1D).DMD (N = 20) 54 (48?4) 21 (14?0) 42 ?14 60 ?11 7 (35) 49 (40?9) 24 (19?9) 51 ?9 13 (65) 13 ?12 (n = 13) 5 (25)BMD (N = 68) 85 (69?07) 38 (27?2) 63 ?14 51 ?15 38 (56) 65 (58?1) 31 (25?9) 53 ?10 43 (63) 17 ?14 (n = 43) 15 (22)p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.014 0.13 <0.001 0.003 0.32 1.00 0.37 0.DMD ?Duchene muscular dystrophy; PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27532042 BMD ?Becker muscular dystrophy; LV ?left ventricle; RV ?right ventricle; EDV ?end diastolic volume; ESV ?end systolic volume; EF ?ejection fraction; LGE ?late gadolinium enhancement. Bold numbers indicate significant p-values/parameters.Florian et al. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014, 16:81 http://jcmr-online.com/content/16/1/Page 5 ofFigure 1 Distribution of LV-EF, LGE and cardiac events. (A) Scatter plot showing the high correlation between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE) extent. (A) Scatter plot showing the high correlation between left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) and late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE) extent. (B) and (C) Distribution of secondary endpoints according to the de.