Literature DB >> 16966586

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.

Saman Nazarian1, 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.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16966586      PMCID: PMC3410556          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.607655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  43 in total

1.  Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T.

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

Review 2.  Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): Consensus Panel report.

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

3.  Pacemaker complication during magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Marc A Rozner; Allen W Burton; Ashok Kumar
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2005-01-04       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers.

Authors:  J R Gimbel; D Johnson; P A Levine; B L Wilkoff
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 1.976

5.  Loss Prevention case of the month. Not my responsibility!

Authors:  J K Avery
Journal:  J Tenn Med Assoc       Date:  1988-08

6.  Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on DDD pacemakers.

Authors:  J A Erlebacher; P T Cahill; F Pannizzo; R J Knowles
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1986-02-15       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 7.  Pacemaker malfunction.

Authors:  D L Hayes; R E Vlietstra
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Effect of 1.5 tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers.

Authors:  D L Hayes; D R Holmes; J E Gray
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Clinical evaluation of the safety of repetitive intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing.

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

Review 10.  MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care.

Authors:  Frank G Shellock; John V Crues
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  78 in total

1.  Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with permanent pacemakers: a collaborative clinical approach.

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

2.  [Magnetic resonance imaging and implantable cardiac devices. Current status and future perspectives of MR-compatible systems].

Authors:  M Dorenkamp; M Roser; B Hamm; W Haverkamp
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.443

3.  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

4.  A protocol for patients with cardiovascular implantable devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): should defibrillation threshold testing be performed post-(MRI).

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

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging, pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: current situation and clinical perspective.

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

Review 6.  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

7.  Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) techniques for resynchronization: phase analysis and equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography.

Authors:  Kenneth C Bilchick
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Clinical value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with MR-conditional pacemakers.

Authors:  Claire E Raphael; Vassilis Vassiliou; Francisco Alpendurada; Sanjay K Prasad; Dudley J Pennell; Raad H Mohiaddin
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 6.875

9.  An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

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

10.  An RF dosimeter for independent SAR measurement in MRI scanners.

Authors:  Di Qian; Abdel-Monem M El-Sharkawy; Paul A Bottomley; William A Edelstein
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.