OBJECTIVES: This study compared risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional pacing and defibrillator systems with particular attention to clinically actionable outcomes. BACKGROUND: While recipients of new MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator systems may undergo MRI scanning with very low risk, safety and regulatory concerns persist regarding such scanning in recipients of non-MRI conditional systems. METHODS: Patients with any cardiac device who were referred for MRI were prospectively enrolled at a single center and underwent scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Pre- and postscan lead characteristic changes, system integrity, and symptoms were analyzed. A comparison was made between non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional devices. RESULTS: 105 patients were evaluated allowing for comparison of 97 scans with non-MRI conditional devices and 16 scans with MRI conditional devices. The cohort included those with pacemaker dependency, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization devices. Small, nonsignificant changes were observed in lead characteristics following scanning, and there was no significant difference when comparing non-MRI and MRI conditional devices. Lead parameter changes did not require lead revision or programming changes. No device reset, failures, or premature scan termination was observed. CONCLUSIONS: 1.5 T MRI scanning in patients with MRI conditional and non-MRI conditional cardiac devices was performed with similar, low clinical risk.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional pacing and defibrillator systems with particular attention to clinically actionable outcomes. BACKGROUND: While recipients of new MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator systems may undergo MRI scanning with very low risk, safety and regulatory concerns persist regarding such scanning in recipients of non-MRI conditional systems. METHODS:Patients with any cardiac device who were referred for MRI were prospectively enrolled at a single center and underwent scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Pre- and postscan lead characteristic changes, system integrity, and symptoms were analyzed. A comparison was made between non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional devices. RESULTS: 105 patients were evaluated allowing for comparison of 97 scans with non-MRI conditional devices and 16 scans with MRI conditional devices. The cohort included those with pacemaker dependency, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization devices. Small, nonsignificant changes were observed in lead characteristics following scanning, and there was no significant difference when comparing non-MRI and MRI conditional devices. Lead parameter changes did not require lead revision or programming changes. No device reset, failures, or premature scan termination was observed. CONCLUSIONS: 1.5 T MRI scanning in patients with MRI conditional and non-MRI conditional cardiac devices was performed with similar, low clinical risk.
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: Daniel Kiblboeck; Christian Reiter; Juergen Kammler; Pierre Schmit; Hermann Blessberger; Joerg Kellermair; Franz Fellner; Clemens Steinwender Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Christoph Alexander König; Florian Tinhofer; Thomas Puntus; Achim Leo Burger; Nikolaus Neubauer; Herbert Langenberger; Kurt Huber; Michael Nürnberg; David Zweiker Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 1.704
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: Nareg Minaskeian; Sofia P Hajnal; Michael B Liu; Lindsay M Klooster; Katrina L Devick; Linda Schwartz; Clinton E Jokerst; Dan Sorajja; Luis Rp Scott Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 2.102