» Articles » PMID: 16966586

Clinical Utility and Safety of a Protocol for Noncardiac and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Patients with Permanent Pacemakers and Implantable-cardioverter Defibrillators at 1.5 Tesla

Overview
Journal Circulation
Date 2006 Sep 13
PMID 16966586
Citations 89
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important diagnostic modality currently unavailable for millions of patients because of the presence of implantable cardiac devices. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic utility and safety of noncardiac and cardiac MRI at 1.5T using a protocol that incorporates device selection and programming and limits the estimated specific absorption rate of MRI sequences.

Methods And Results: Patients with no imaging alternative and with devices shown to be MRI safe by in vitro phantom and in vivo animal testing were enrolled. Of 55 patients who underwent 68 MRI studies, 31 had a pacemaker, and 24 had an implantable defibrillator. Pacing mode was changed to "asynchronous" for pacemaker-dependent patients and to "demand" for others. Magnet response and tachyarrhythmia functions were disabled. Blood pressure, ECG, oximetry, and symptoms were monitored. Efforts were made to limit the system-estimated whole-body average specific absorption rate to 2.0 W/kg (successful in >99% of sequences) while maintaining the diagnostic capability of MRI. No episodes of inappropriate inhibition or activation of pacing were observed. There were no significant differences between baseline and immediate or long-term (median 99 days after MRI) sensing amplitudes, lead impedances, or pacing thresholds. Diagnostic questions were answered in 100% of nonthoracic and 93% of thoracic studies. Clinical findings included diagnosis of vascular abnormalities (9 patients), diagnosis or staging of malignancy (9 patients), and assessment of cardiac viability (13 patients).

Conclusions: Given appropriate precautions, noncardiac and cardiac MRI can potentially be safely performed in patients with selected implantable pacemaker and defibrillator systems.

Citing Articles

Aortic velocity measurements derived from phase-contrast MRI are influenced by a cardiac implantable electronic device in both adult and pediatric human subjects.

Yang H, Aboyewa O, Webster G, Shah D, Golestanirad L, Baraboo J Magn Reson Med. 2024; 93(5):2099-2107.

PMID: 39642044 PMC: 11893034. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.30399.


Awareness and barriers of sacral neuromodulation in women with overactive bladder.

Reisenauer C, Andress J Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 310(4):2273-2277.

PMID: 39083051 PMC: 11393171. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07664-2.


Performance and Physician Experience of INGEVITY+ Active Fixation Leads: Prospective INGEVITY+ Lead Clinical Study in Korea.

Joung B, Bae M, Oh I, Park H, Shim J, Cho M Cardiol Res Pract. 2024; 2024:2172306.

PMID: 38239431 PMC: 10796181. DOI: 10.1155/2024/2172306.


SCMR expert consensus statement for cardiovascular magnetic resonance of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device.

Kim D, Collins J, White J, Hanneman K, Lee D, Patel A J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2024; 26(1):100995.

PMID: 38219955 PMC: 11211236. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.100995.


Detection of Pacemaker and Identification of MRI-conditional Pacemaker Based on Deep-learning Convolutional Neural Networks to Improve Patient Safety.

Do Y, Ahn S, Kim S, Kim J, Choi B, Kim H J Med Syst. 2023; 47(1):80.

PMID: 37522981 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-023-01981-w.


References
1.
Shellock F, Crues J . MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004; 232(3):635-52. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323030830. View

2.
Roguin A, Zviman M, Meininger G, Rodrigues E, Dickfeld T, Bluemke D . Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T. Circulation. 2004; 110(5):475-82. PMC: 3410537. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000137121.28722.33. View

3.
Erlebacher J, Cahill P, Pannizzo F, KNOWLES R . Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on DDD pacemakers. Am J Cardiol. 1986; 57(6):437-40. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(86)90768-x. View

4.
Hayes D, Holmes Jr D, Gray J . Effect of 1.5 tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987; 10(4):782-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80270-x. View

5.
AVERY J . Loss Prevention case of the month. Not my responsibility!. J Tenn Med Assoc. 1988; 81(8):523. View