RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Studies reporting the safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) have mostly excluded examinations with the device in the magnet isocenter. The purpose of this study was to describe the safety of cardiac and thoracic spine MRI in patients with a CIED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of patients with a CIED who underwent a cardiac or thoracic spine MRI between January 2011 and December 2014 were reviewed. Devices were interrogated before and after imaging with reprogramming to asynchronous pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients. The clinical interpretability of the MRI and peak and average specific absorption rates (SARs, W/kg) achieved were determined. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients underwent 51 cardiac and 11 thoracic spine MRI exams. Twenty-nine patients had a pacemaker and 29 had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Seventeen percent (n = 10) were pacemaker dependent. Fifty-one patients (89%) had non-MRI-conditional devices. There were no clinically significant changes in atrial and ventricular sensing, impedance, and threshold measurements. There were no episodes of device mode changes, arrhythmias, therapies delivered, electrical reset, or battery depletion. One study was prematurely discontinued due to a patient complaint of chest pain of which the etiology was not determined. Across all examinations, the average peak SAR was 2.0 ± 0.85 W/kg with an average SAR of 0.35 ± 0.37 W/kg. Artifact significantly limiting the clinical interpretation of the study was present in 33% of cardiac MRI studies. CONCLUSIONS: When a comprehensive CIED magnetic resonance safety protocol is followed, the risk of performing 1.5-T magnetic resonance studies with the device in the magnet isocenter, including in patients who are pacemaker dependent, is low.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Studies reporting the safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) have mostly excluded examinations with the device in the magnet isocenter. The purpose of this study was to describe the safety of cardiac and thoracic spine MRI in patients with a CIED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of patients with a CIED who underwent a cardiac or thoracic spine MRI between January 2011 and December 2014 were reviewed. Devices were interrogated before and after imaging with reprogramming to asynchronous pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients. The clinical interpretability of the MRI and peak and average specific absorption rates (SARs, W/kg) achieved were determined. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients underwent 51 cardiac and 11 thoracic spine MRI exams. Twenty-nine patients had a pacemaker and 29 had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Seventeen percent (n = 10) were pacemaker dependent. Fifty-one patients (89%) had non-MRI-conditional devices. There were no clinically significant changes in atrial and ventricular sensing, impedance, and threshold measurements. There were no episodes of device mode changes, arrhythmias, therapies delivered, electrical reset, or battery depletion. One study was prematurely discontinued due to a patient complaint of chest pain of which the etiology was not determined. Across all examinations, the average peak SAR was 2.0 ± 0.85 W/kg with an average SAR of 0.35 ± 0.37 W/kg. Artifact significantly limiting the clinical interpretation of the study was present in 33% of cardiac MRI studies. CONCLUSIONS: When a comprehensive CIED magnetic resonance safety protocol is followed, the risk of performing 1.5-T magnetic resonance studies with the device in the magnet isocenter, including in patients who are pacemaker dependent, is low.
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: Jacinta E Browne; Christin A Tiegs-Heiden; Vance T Lehman; Zaiyang Long; Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Robert E Watson; Gina K Hesley; Krzysztof R Gorny Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-08-05
Authors: KyungPyo Hong; Jeremy D Collins; Bradley P Knight; James C Carr; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Amir Ali Rahsepar; Jeremy D Collins; Bradley P Knight; KyungPyo Hong; James C Carr; Daniel Kim Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: KyungPyo Hong; Jeremy D Collins; Benjamin H Freed; Lexiaozi Fan; Andrew E Arai; Li-Yueh Hsu; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-04-16
Authors: Matthew M Yuen; Anjali M Prabhat; Mercy H Mazurek; Isha R Chavva; Anna Crawford; Bradley A Cahn; Rachel Beekman; Jennifer A Kim; Kevin T Gobeske; Nils H Petersen; Guido J Falcone; Emily J Gilmore; David Y Hwang; Adam S Jasne; Hardik Amin; Richa Sharma; Charles Matouk; Adrienne Ward; Joseph Schindler; Lauren Sansing; Adam de Havenon; Ani Aydin; Charles Wira; Gordon Sze; Matthew S Rosen; W Taylor Kimberly; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 14.957
Authors: Sungtak Hong; KyungPyo Hong; Austin E Culver; Ashitha Pathrose; Bradley D Allen; Jane E Wilcox; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Sarah M Schwartz; Ashitha Pathrose; Ali M Serhal; Ann B Ragin; Jessica Charron; Bradley P Knight; Rod S Passman; Ryan J Avery; Daniel Kim Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-11-13