Literature DB >> 26701418

Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with an Implantable Loop Recorder.

Florian Blaschke1, Philipp Lacour1, Thula Walter2, Alexander Wutzler1, Martin Huemer1, Abdul Parwani1, Philipp Attanasio1, Leif-Hendrik Boldt1, Marcus Markowski2, Timm Denecke2, Wilhelm Haverkamp1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) allow continuous cardiac monitoring for 3-6 years and are a valuable tool for the investigation of syncopal episodes, palpitations, and atrial fibrillations as well as risk stratification after myocardial infarction. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with ILRs has been shown to be safe, the impact of ILRs on cardiac MRI image quality has not been investigated yet. Thus, we tested the diagnostic value of cardiac MRI in patients with various types of ILRs.
METHODS: Two patients with an ILR and a clinical indication to assess myocardial burden of scarring and fibrosis or stress-induced myocardial ischemia underwent cardiac MRI. Device interrogation was performed prior to, immediately after, and 3 months after cardiac MRI.
RESULTS: The post-MRI follow-ups revealed no change in programmed ILR parameters, sensing fidelity, and battery parameters. However, ILRs caused significant, uninterpretable hyperintensity artifacts in cardiac MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical studies are warranted to investigate whether modified MRI techniques are helpful to eliminate imaging artifacts.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arrhythmia; cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; imaging artifacts; implantable loop recorder

Year:  2015        PMID: 26701418      PMCID: PMC6931615          DOI: 10.1111/anec.12333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol        ISSN: 1082-720X            Impact factor:   1.468


  25 in total

1.  Cardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional ("long-bore") and "short-bore" 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla MR systems.

Authors:  Frank G Shellock; Jean A Tkach; Paul M Ruggieri; Thomas J Masaryk
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 2.  How to perform magnetic resonance imaging on patients with implantable cardiac arrhythmia devices.

Authors:  Saman Nazarian; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 6.343

3.  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

4.  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.

Authors:  Saman Nazarian; 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
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging of implantable cardiac rhythm devices at 3.0 tesla.

Authors:  J Rod Gimbel
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.976

6.  Device artifact reduction for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and ventricular tachycardia: late gadolinium enhancement correlation with electroanatomic mapping.

Authors:  Steven M Stevens; Roderick Tung; Shams Rashid; Jean Gima; Shelly Cote; Geraldine Pavez; Sarah Khan; Daniel B Ennis; J Paul Finn; Noel Boyle; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Peng Hu
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 6.343

7.  Feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with an implantable loop recorder.

Authors:  Jorge A Wong; Raymond Yee; Lorne J Gula; Allan C Skanes; Ian G Ross; James B White; George J Klein; Andrew D Krahn
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.976

8.  Low rate of atrial fibrillation recurrence verified by implantable loop recorder monitoring following a convergent epicardial and endocardial ablation of atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Borut Gersak; Andrej Pernat; Boris Robic; Matjaz Sinkovec
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-05-15

Review 9.  Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: how far have we come?

Authors:  Peter Nordbeck; Georg Ertl; Oliver Ritter
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance artefacts.

Authors:  Pedro F Ferreira; Peter D Gatehouse; Raad H Mohiaddin; David N Firmin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 5.364

View more
  3 in total

1.  A tertiary centre experience of thoracic CT and cardiac MRI scanning in the presence of a reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitoring system: a case series review of artefact, patient safety and data preservation.

Authors:  Benedict M Wiles; Caroline A Illingworth; Michael Lg Couzins; Paul R Roberts; Stephen P Harden
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Provision of MR imaging for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): a single-center experience and national survey.

Authors:  Aoife S Murray; Paddy J Gilligan; James M Bisset; Chris Nolan; Joseph M Galvin; John G Murray
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Feasibility of MRI in patients with non-Pacemaker/Defibrillator metallic devices and abandoned leads.

Authors:  Prabhakaran P Gopalakrishnan; Loretta Gevenosky; Robert W W Biederman
Journal:  J Biomed Sci Eng       Date:  2021-03-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.