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.
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.
Authors: Ariel Roguin; Menekhem M Zviman; Glenn R Meininger; E Rene Rodrigues; Timm M Dickfeld; David A Bluemke; Albert Lardo; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Henry R Halperin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dudley J Pennell; Udo P Sechtem; Charles B Higgins; Warren J Manning; Gerald M Pohost; Frank E Rademakers; Albert C van Rossum; Leslee J Shaw; E Kent Yucel Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: R Frame; R Brodman; S Furman; S G Kim; J Roth; K Ferrick; I Hollinger; J Gross; J D Fisher Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 1.976
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