Literature DB >> 28224629

Clinical Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conditional and Nonconditional Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

Anand D Shah1, Adarsh U Patel2, Andrea Knezevic3, Michael H Hoskins1, David S Hirsh1, Faisal M Merchant1, Mikhael F El Chami1, David B Delurgio1, Anshul M Patel1, Angel R Leon1, Jonathan J Langberg1, Michael S Lloyd1.   

Abstract

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.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; defibrillation-ICD; imaging; pacing

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28224629     DOI: 10.1111/pace.13060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  6 in total

1.  An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

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

2.  MRI of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

Authors:  Jessica A Martinez; Daniel B Ennis
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep       Date:  2019-05-27

3.  Artefacts in 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers.

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

4.  Is diversity harmful?-Mixed-brand cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

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

5.  Clinical safety of ProMRI implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems during head and lower lumbar magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla.

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

6.  Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices with generator and lead(s) brand mismatch.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.