BACKGROUND: A new pacing system has been designed and tested preclinically for safe use in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment. Experience with this innovative system has not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to verify the safety and effectiveness of this newly designed system compared to conventional DDD implant outcomes. METHODS: Over an 11-month period, 107 consecutive patients (71 men and 36 women; age 72.6 +/- 8.5 years) were implanted with either the MRI system (n = 50; MRI group) or a dual-chamber, active-fixation lead (Medtronic 4076) non-MRI system (n = 57; DDD group). Data were collected at implant and during postoperative follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Procedural and fluoroscopic times at implant, as well as lead measurements, handling characteristics, and procedural-related complications, were prospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The implantation success rate in both groups was 100%. Cephalic access was 63% for MRI patients and 70% for DDD patients (P = NS). Follow-up was obtained for all patients (median 6.8 months, range 3-12 months). At implant and at the end of follow-up, stimulation thresholds, sensing, and impedance were acceptable. No cases of high pacing thresholds or inadequate sensing were noted. No complications occurred, and no patient experienced subsequent lead displacement. CONCLUSION: This prospective, controlled study provides strong evidence that the feasibility and safety of this novel technology compare favorably with those of the conventional technique. Copyright (c) 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: A new pacing system has been designed and tested preclinically for safe use in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment. Experience with this innovative system has not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to verify the safety and effectiveness of this newly designed system compared to conventional DDD implant outcomes. METHODS: Over an 11-month period, 107 consecutive patients (71 men and 36 women; age 72.6 +/- 8.5 years) were implanted with either the MRI system (n = 50; MRI group) or a dual-chamber, active-fixation lead (Medtronic 4076) non-MRI system (n = 57; DDD group). Data were collected at implant and during postoperative follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Procedural and fluoroscopic times at implant, as well as lead measurements, handling characteristics, and procedural-related complications, were prospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The implantation success rate in both groups was 100%. Cephalic access was 63% for MRI patients and 70% for DDDpatients (P = NS). Follow-up was obtained for all patients (median 6.8 months, range 3-12 months). At implant and at the end of follow-up, stimulation thresholds, sensing, and impedance were acceptable. No cases of high pacing thresholds or inadequate sensing were noted. No complications occurred, and no patient experienced subsequent lead displacement. CONCLUSION: This prospective, controlled study provides strong evidence that the feasibility and safety of this novel technology compare favorably with those of the conventional technique. Copyright (c) 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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
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