OBJECTIVE: To determine if strategies used to safely scan nonpacemaker-dependent patients could be applied to facilitate safe MRI of pacemaker-dependent patients. INTERVENTIONS: Ten pacemaker-dependent patients underwent a total of 11 MRI scans of the head and neck. Screening, reprogramming VOO or DOO at 60 ppm, and monitoring strategies were used to facilitate MRI. A transmit-receive coil was used and MRI pulse sequences were modified to limit the whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR). RESULTS: All scans proceeded uneventfully. No difficulties in post-MRI telemetry or interrogation were seen and no post-MRI programming changes were noted. No patient experienced arrhythmia or symptoms during or immediately after MRI. Battery status remained unchanged. No patient experienced post-MRI change in sensing thresholds. Three patients showed no change in the atrial or ventricular pacing thresholds when the pre-MRI values were compared to the immediate post-MRI values and the 3-month follow-up values. All other patients showed a rise or fall of 0.5 V in their chamber threshold values when the pre-MRI, post-MRI, and 3-month follow-up values were compared. More patients showed a fall in their pacing thresholds than a rise post-MRI. CONCLUSION: While clearly a higher risk group, like nonpacemaker-dependent patients, MRI might be performed in pacemaker-dependent patients if appropriate pacemaker reprogramming, patient monitoring, and MRI scanning techniques are implemented.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if strategies used to safely scan nonpacemaker-dependent patients could be applied to facilitate safe MRI of pacemaker-dependent patients. INTERVENTIONS: Ten pacemaker-dependent patients underwent a total of 11 MRI scans of the head and neck. Screening, reprogramming VOO or DOO at 60 ppm, and monitoring strategies were used to facilitate MRI. A transmit-receive coil was used and MRI pulse sequences were modified to limit the whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR). RESULTS: All scans proceeded uneventfully. No difficulties in post-MRI telemetry or interrogation were seen and no post-MRI programming changes were noted. No patient experienced arrhythmia or symptoms during or immediately after MRI. Battery status remained unchanged. No patient experienced post-MRI change in sensing thresholds. Three patients showed no change in the atrial or ventricular pacing thresholds when the pre-MRI values were compared to the immediate post-MRI values and the 3-month follow-up values. All other patients showed a rise or fall of 0.5 V in their chamber threshold values when the pre-MRI, post-MRI, and 3-month follow-up values were compared. More patients showed a fall in their pacing thresholds than a rise post-MRI. CONCLUSION: While clearly a higher risk group, like nonpacemaker-dependent patients, MRI might be performed in pacemaker-dependent patients if appropriate pacemaker reprogramming, patient monitoring, and MRI scanning techniques are implemented.
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: C Brockmann; T Sommer; R Pirzer; H U Kerl; I S Nolte; A Förster; M A Brockmann Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-19 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Saman Nazarian; Rozann Hansford; Amir A Rahsepar; Valeria Weltin; Diana McVeigh; Esra Gucuk Ipek; Alan Kwan; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Albert C Lardo; Michael A Kraut; Ihab R Kamel; Stefan L Zimmerman; Henry R Halperin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
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