William M Bailey1, Lawrence Rosenthal2, Lameh Fananapazir3, Marye Gleva4, Alexander Mazur5, C A Rinaldi6, Alexander Kypta7, Béla Merkely8, Pamela K Woodard4. 1. Louisiana Heart Rhythm Specialists and Lafayette General Medical Center, Lafayette, Louisiana. Electronic address: wbailey@heartrhythmmd.com. 2. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Amherst, Massachusetts. 3. Private Practice, Cumberland, Maryland. 4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. 6. St. Thomas, London, United Kingdom. 7. Krankenhaus der Stadt Linz, Linz, Austria. 8. Semmelweis University Heart Center, Budapest, Hungary.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Permanent cardiac pacemakers have historically been considered a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the ProMRI/ProMRI AFFIRM Study, which was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized study, was to evaluate the clinical safety of the Biotronik ProMRI Pacemaker System under specific MRI conditions. METHODS: The ProMRI Study (in the United States) and the ProMRI AFFIRM study (outside the United States) with identical design enrolled 272 patients with stable baseline pacing indices implanted with an Entovis or Evia pacemaker (DR-T or SR-T) and Setrox or Safio 53-cm or 60-cm lead. Device interrogation was performed at enrollment, pre-MRI and post-MRI scan, and 1 and 3 months post-MRI. End-points were (1) freedom from MRI- and pacing system-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) through 1 month post-MRI, (2) freedom from atrial and ventricular MRI-induced pacing threshold increase (>0.5 V), and (3) freedom from P- and R-wave amplitude attenuation (<50%), or P wave <1.5 mV, or R wave <5.0 mV at 1 month post-MRI. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six patients completed the MRI and 1-month post-MRI follow-up. No adverse events related to the implanted system and the MRI procedure occurred, resulting in an SADE-free rate of 100.0% (229/229, P <.001). Freedom from atrial and ventricular pacing threshold increase was 99.0% (189/191, P = .003) and 100% (217/217, P <.001), respectively. Freedom from P- and R- wave amplitude attenuation was 99.4% (167/168, P <.001) and 99.5% (193/194, P <.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of the ProMRI/ProMRI AFFIRM studies demonstrate the clinical safety and efficacy of the ProMRI pacemaker system in patients subjected to head and lower lumbar MRI conditions.
BACKGROUND: Permanent cardiac pacemakers have historically been considered a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the ProMRI/ProMRI AFFIRM Study, which was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized study, was to evaluate the clinical safety of the Biotronik ProMRI Pacemaker System under specific MRI conditions. METHODS: The ProMRI Study (in the United States) and the ProMRI AFFIRM study (outside the United States) with identical design enrolled 272 patients with stable baseline pacing indices implanted with an Entovis or Evia pacemaker (DR-T or SR-T) and Setrox or Safio 53-cm or 60-cm lead. Device interrogation was performed at enrollment, pre-MRI and post-MRI scan, and 1 and 3 months post-MRI. End-points were (1) freedom from MRI- and pacing system-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) through 1 month post-MRI, (2) freedom from atrial and ventricular MRI-induced pacing threshold increase (>0.5 V), and (3) freedom from P- and R-wave amplitude attenuation (<50%), or P wave <1.5 mV, or R wave <5.0 mV at 1 month post-MRI. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six patients completed the MRI and 1-month post-MRI follow-up. No adverse events related to the implanted system and the MRI procedure occurred, resulting in an SADE-free rate of 100.0% (229/229, P <.001). Freedom from atrial and ventricular pacing threshold increase was 99.0% (189/191, P = .003) and 100% (217/217, P <.001), respectively. Freedom from P- and R- wave amplitude attenuation was 99.4% (167/168, P <.001) and 99.5% (193/194, P <.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of the ProMRI/ProMRI AFFIRM studies demonstrate the clinical safety and efficacy of the ProMRI pacemaker system in patients subjected to head and lower lumbar MRI conditions.
Authors: Rainer Zbinden; Christian Wollmann; Johannes Brachmann; Jochen Michaelsen; Clemens Steinwender; Pramesh Kovoor; Sebastian Kelle; Andrew D McGavigan; Chi Keong Ching; Gemma A Figtree; Jan Schmidt; Tobias Timmel; Joachim Lotz Journal: Europace Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: You Mi Hwang; Jun Kim; Ji Hyun Lee; Minsu Kim; Gi-Byoung Nam; Kee-Joon Choi; You-Ho Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Wolfgang Rudolf Bauer; Dennis H Lau; Christian Wollmann; Andrew McGavigan; Jacques Mansourati; Theresa Reiter; Simone Frömer; Mark E Ladd; Harald H Quick Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Thuy D Nguyen; Sarah A Sandberg; Amir K Durrani; Kevin W Mitchell; Matthew D Keith; Marye J Gleva; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2020-12-18