» Articles » PMID: 31624965

Feasibility, Safety, and Utility of Brain MRI for Patients with Non-MRI-conditioned CIED

Overview
Journal Neurosurg Rev
Specialty Neurosurgery
Date 2019 Oct 19
PMID 31624965
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Feasibility, safety, and utility of brain MRI for patients with non-MRI-conditioned cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) remains controversial. While a growing number of studies have shown safe employment in select patients under strict protocols, there is an increasing clinical need for further off-label investigations. To assess the feasibility and utility of brain MRI in neurological and neurosurgical patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIEDs using off-label protocol. We retrospectively evaluated 126 patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIEDs referred to our hospital between 2014 to 2018 for MRI under an IRB-approved protocol. A total of 126 off-label brain MRI scans were performed. The mean age was 67.5 ± 13.0. Seventy percent of scans were performed on female patients. Indications for MRI are neurosurgical (45.2%), neurological (51.6%), and others (3.2%). MRI utilization for tumor cases was highest for tumor cases (68.3%), but employment was valuable for vascular (12.7%), deep brain stimulators (3.2%), and other cases (15.9%). In the tumor category, (37.2%) of the scans were performed for initial diagnosis and pre-surgical planning, (47.7%) for post-intervention evaluation/surveillance, (15.1%) for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment (CyberKnife). No clinical complications were encountered. No functional device complications of the CIED were identified during and after the MRI in 96.9% of the studies. A 49.6% of the off-label brain MRI scans performed led to a clinically significant decision and/or intervention for the patients. A 42.9% of obtained MRI studies did not change the plan of care. A 7.9% of post-scan decision-making data was not available. We demonstrate that off-label brain MRI scans performed on select patients under a strict protocol is feasible, safe, and relevant. Almost 50% of scans provided critical information resulting in clinical intervention of the patients.

References
1.
Cadieu R, Peron M, Le Ven F, Kerdraon S, Boutet C, Mansourati J . Central nervous system MRI and cardiac implantable electronic devices. J Neuroradiol. 2016; 44(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2016.09.004. View

2.
Cohen J, Costa H, Russo R . Determining the risks of magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 tesla for patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 110(11):1631-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.07.030. View

3.
Nazarian S, Hansford R, Roguin A, Goldsher D, Zviman M, Lardo A . A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(7):415-24. PMC: 4337840. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00004. View

4.
Nazarian S, Roguin A, Zviman M, Lardo A, Dickfeld T, Calkins H . 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. Circulation. 2006; 114(12):1277-84. PMC: 3410556. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.607655. View

5.
Roguin A . Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54(6):556-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.047. View