BACKGROUND: MRI has unparalleled soft-tissue imaging capabilities. The presence of devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs), however, is historically considered a contraindication to MRI. These devices are now smaller, with less magnetic material and improved electromagnetic interference protection. Our aim was to determine whether these modern systems can be used in an MR environment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We tested in vitro and in vivo lead heating, device function, force acting on the device, and image distortion at 1.5 T. Clinical MR protocols and in vivo measurements yielded temperature changes <0.5 degrees C. Older (manufactured before 2000) ICDs were damaged by the MR scans. Newer ICD systems and most pacemakers, however, were not. The maximal force acting on newer devices was <100 g. Modern (manufactured after 2000) ICD systems were implanted in dogs (n=18), and after 4 weeks, 3- to 4-hour MR scans were performed (n=15). No device dysfunction occurred. The images were of high quality with distortion dependent on the scan sequence and plane. Pacing threshold and intracardiac electrogram amplitude were unchanged over the 8 weeks, except in 1 animal that, after MRI, had a transient (<12 hours) capture failure. Pathological data of the scanned animals revealed very limited necrosis or fibrosis at the tip of the lead area, which was not different from controls (n=3) not subjected to MRI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that certain modern pacemaker and ICD systems may indeed be MRI safe. This may have major clinical implications for current imaging practices.
BACKGROUND: MRI has unparalleled soft-tissue imaging capabilities. The presence of devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs), however, is historically considered a contraindication to MRI. These devices are now smaller, with less magnetic material and improved electromagnetic interference protection. Our aim was to determine whether these modern systems can be used in an MR environment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We tested in vitro and in vivo lead heating, device function, force acting on the device, and image distortion at 1.5 T. Clinical MR protocols and in vivo measurements yielded temperature changes <0.5 degrees C. Older (manufactured before 2000) ICDs were damaged by the MR scans. Newer ICD systems and most pacemakers, however, were not. The maximal force acting on newer devices was <100 g. Modern (manufactured after 2000) ICD systems were implanted in dogs (n=18), and after 4 weeks, 3- to 4-hour MR scans were performed (n=15). No device dysfunction occurred. The images were of high quality with distortion dependent on the scan sequence and plane. Pacing threshold and intracardiac electrogram amplitude were unchanged over the 8 weeks, except in 1 animal that, after MRI, had a transient (<12 hours) capture failure. Pathological data of the scanned animals revealed very limited necrosis or fibrosis at the tip of the lead area, which was not different from controls (n=3) not subjected to MRI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that certain modern pacemaker and ICD systems may indeed be MRI safe. This may have major clinical implications for current imaging practices.
Authors: T Sommer; C Vahlhaus; G Lauck; A von Smekal; M Reinke; U Hofer; W Block; F Träber; C Schneider; J Gieseke; W Jung; H Schild Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel A Finelli; Ali R Rezai; Paul M Ruggieri; Jean A Tkach; John A Nyenhuis; Greg Hrdlicka; Ashwini Sharan; Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez; Paul H Stypulkowski; Frank G Shellock Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R J Kim; E Wu; A Rafael; E L Chen; M A Parker; O Simonetti; F J Klocke; R O Bonow; R M Judd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward T Martin; James A Coman; Frank G Shellock; Christopher C Pulling; Robert Fair; Kim Jenkins Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-04-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Barry Anthony Boilson; Anita Wokhlu; Nancy G Acker; Joel P Felmlee; Robert E Watson; Paul R Julsrud; Paul A Friedman; Yong-Mei Cha; Robert F Rea; David L Hayes; Win-Kuang Shen Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 1.900
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
Authors: Peter Thomas Burke; Hamid Ghanbari; Patrick B Alexander; Michael K Shaw; Marcos Daccarett; Christian Machado Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: M J W Götte; I K Rüssel; G J de Roest; T Germans; R F Veldkamp; P Knaapen; C P Allaart; A C van Rossum Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.380
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
Authors: Pierpaolo Lupo; Riccardo Cappato; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Secchi; Giacomo D E Papini; Sara Foresti; Hussam Ali; Guido M G De Ambroggi; Antonio Sorgente; Gianluca Epicoco; Paola M Cannaò; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 5.315