Literature DB >> 28960745

Real world MRI experience with nonconditional and conditional cardiac rhythm devices after MagnaSafe.

Steve Mason1, Jeffrey S Osborn1, Ritesh Dhar1, Allison Tonkin2, Jon-David Ethington1, Viet Le1, Jose Benuzillo1, Donald L Lappe1, Kirk U Knowlton1,3, T Jared Bunch1, Jeffrey L Anderson1,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The recent MagnaSafe Registry demonstrated safety of nonthoracic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, independent validation and extension to thoracic MRIs are needed. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We prospectively examined 178 consecutive patients with CIEDs who underwent 212 MRI scans (62 with implantable cardioverter/defibrillators) for clinical reasons between February 2014 and August 2016. Scans were done in standard modes with a limit of 2 W/kg. Pacing modes were ODO or OVO for intrinsic rates > 40 and DOO or VOO for rates ≤ 40. Patients were cleared prescan by both radiology and cardiology, and pre- and postscan CIED interrogations were performed. Primary outcome events were death and generator or lead failure. Secondary events included battery voltage loss > 0.04 V, decrease in P wave voltage > 50% or R wave voltage > 25%, threshold increase of > 0.5 V, and impedance change > 50 Ω. Scan sites were 87 (41%) C-spine/head/neck, 28 (13%) T-spine/cardiac/shoulder (thoracic), 69 (33%) L-spine/abdomen/pelvis, and 28 (13%) lower extremity. No primary or secondary outcome events occurred, and no periscan disruption of pacing was noted.
CONCLUSION: In a real-world MRI experience in patients with CIEDs representing a broad range of models, types, and scan sites (including thoracic scans), no adverse safety signals were noted. This experience validates and extends that of the large but inclusion-restricted MagnaSafe Registry, profiles MRI scanning in CIED patients in general clinical practice, and argues against replacing nonconditional with conditional devices when MRI is performed in a carefully controlled environment.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac implantable electronic device; implantable cardioverter defibrillator; magnetic resonance imaging; pacemaker

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28960745     DOI: 10.1111/jce.13351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  5 in total

1.  Feasibility of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Wideband Protocol in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and Its Utility for Defining Scar.

Authors:  Amita Singh; Keigo Kawaji; Neha Goyal; Noreen T Nazir; Andrew Beaser; Virginia O'Keefe-Baker; Karima Addetia; Roderick Tung; Peng Hu; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  Cardiac implanted electronic devices and MRI safety in 2018-the state of play.

Authors:  Ryan Mark Shulman; Ben Hunt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Patient Orientation Affects Lead-Tip Heating of Cardiac Active Implantable Medical Devices during MRI.

Authors:  Jessica A Martinez; Peter Serano; Daniel B Ennis
Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging       Date:  2019-08-29

4.  Signal voids of active cardiac implants at 3.0 T CMR.

Authors:  Theresa Reiter; Ingo Weiss; Oliver M Weber; Wolfgang R Bauer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.