Literature DB >> 12765117

Cardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional ("long-bore") and "short-bore" 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla MR systems.

Frank G Shellock1, Jean A Tkach, Paul M Ruggieri, Thomas J Masaryk.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate magnet-related translational attraction for cardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and an insertable loop recorder in association with exposure to "long-bore" and "short-bore" 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla MR systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen cardiac pacemakers, four ICDs, and one insertable loop recorder were evaluated for translational attraction using deflection angle tests performed at the points of the highest spatial gradients for long-bore and short-bore 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla MR systems according to ASTM guidelines.
RESULTS: Deflection angles ranged from 9-90 degrees for the long-bore and from 11-90 degrees for the short-bore 1.5-T MR system. Deflection angles ranged from 23-90 degrees for the long-bore and from 34-90 degrees for the short-bore 3.0-T MR system. Three of the cardiovascular implants exhibited deflection angles > or = 45 degrees (i.e., indicating that they are potentially unsafe for patients) on the long-bore and short-bore 1.5-T MR systems. Eight implants exhibited deflection angles > or = 45 degrees on the long-bore 3.0-T MR system, while 14 exhibited deflection angles > or = 45 degrees on the short-bore 3.0-T MR system. In general, deflection angles for these cardiovascular implants were significantly (p < 0.01) higher on 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla short-bore compared to the long-bore MR systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Several of the cardiovascular implants that underwent evaluation may be problematic for patients undergoing MR procedures using 1.5- and 3.0-T MR systems because of risks associated with magnet-related movements. Obviously, additional MR safety issues must also be considered for these implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12765117     DOI: 10.1081/jcmr-120019424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson        ISSN: 1097-6647            Impact factor:   5.364


  15 in total

1.  ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents.

Authors:  W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents.

Authors:  W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Safety of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with cardiovascular implants and devices.

Authors:  S K Prasad; D J Pennell
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Orthodontic springs and auxiliary appliances: assessment of magnetic field interactions associated with 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance systems.

Authors:  J Kemper; A N Priest; D Schulze; B Kahl-Nieke; G Adam; A Klocke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-06-29       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Body MRI artefacts: from image degradation to diagnostic utility.

Authors:  G Rescinito; C Sirlin; G Cittadini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Magnetization and demagnetization of magnetic dental attachments in a 3-T MRI system.

Authors:  Norio Hayashi; Akio Ogura; Toshio Tsuchihashi; Daisuke Takahashi; Tsuyoshi Matsuda; Shinya Seino; Tsukasa Doi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2017-04-27

7.  Safe scanning, but frequent artifacts mimicking bradycardia and tachycardia during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with an implantable loop recorder (ILR).

Authors:  J Rod Gimbel; Jamal Zarghami; Christian Machado; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.468

8.  Muscle-fat MRI: 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla versus histology.

Authors:  Andrew C Smith; Todd B Parrish; Rebecca Abbott; Mark A Hoggarth; Karl Mendoza; Yu Fen Chen; James M Elliott
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 3.217

9.  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.

Authors:  Saman Nazarian; Ariel Roguin; Menekhem M Zviman; Albert C Lardo; Timm L Dickfeld; Hugh Calkins; Robert G Weiss; Ronald D Berger; David A Bluemke; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 10.  MRI in patients with cardiac devices.

Authors:  Edward T Martin; David A Sandler
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.