Literature DB >> 19643318

Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5-T in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Claas P Naehle1, Katharina Strach, Daniel Thomas, Carsten Meyer, Markus Linhart, Sascha Bitaraf, Harold Litt, Jörg Otto Schwab, Hans Schild, Torsten Sommer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to establish and evaluate a strategy for safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1.5-T in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).
BACKGROUND: Expanding indications for ICD placement and MRI becoming the imaging modality of choice for many indications has created a growing demand for MRI in ICD patients, which is still considered an absolute contraindication.
METHODS: Non-pacemaker-dependent ICD patients with a clinical need for MRI were included in the study. To minimize radiofrequency-related lead heating, the specific absorption rate was limited to 2 W/kg. ICDs were reprogrammed pre-MRI to avoid competitive pacing and potential pro-arrhythmia: 1) the lower rate limit was programmed as low as reasonably achievable; and 2) arrhythmia detection was programmed on, but therapy delivery was programmed off. Patients were monitored using electrocardiography and pulse oximetry. All ICDs were interrogated before and after the MRI examination and after 3 months, including measurement of pacing capture threshold, lead impedance, battery voltage, and serum troponin I.
RESULTS: Eighteen ICD patients underwent a total of 18 MRI examinations at 1.5-T; all examinations were completed safely. All ICDs could be interrogated and reprogrammed normally post-MRI. No significant changes of pacing capture threshold, lead impedance, and serum troponin I were observed. Battery voltage decreased significantly from pre- to post-MRI. In 2 MRI examinations, oversensing of radiofrequency noise as ventricular fibrillation occurred. However, no attempt at therapy delivery was made.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI of non-pacemaker-dependent ICD patients can be performed with an acceptable risk/benefit ratio under controlled conditions by taking both MRI- and pacemaker-related precautions. (Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Heart at 1.5-Tesla; NCT00356239).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19643318     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  24 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.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Viability assessment with MRI is superior to FDG-PET for viability: Con.

Authors:  Randolph E Patterson; Steven R Sigman; Robert E O'Donnell; Robert L Eisner
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a single-center prospective study.

Authors:  Mrinal Yadava; Matthew Nugent; Angela Krebsbach; Jessica Minnier; Peter Jessel; Charles A Henrikson
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-07-22       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 8.  Safety of implanted cardiac devices in an MRI environment.

Authors:  Esra Gucuk Ipek; Saman Nazarian
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.931

9.  Quantitative assessment of artifacts on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Takeshi Sasaki; Rozann Hansford; Menekhem M Zviman; Aravindan Kolandaivelu; David A Bluemke; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Henry R Halperin; Saman Nazarian
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 7.792

10.  Cardiac troponin T in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  John V Higgins; Robert E Watson; Allan S Jaffe; Connie Dalzell; Nancy Acker; Joel P Felmlee; Samuel J Asirvatham; Yong-Mei Cha; Paul A Friedman; Suraj Kapa
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.