Literature DB >> 29281579

Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cardiac Devices.

Saman Nazarian1, Rozann Hansford1, Amir A Rahsepar1, Valeria Weltin1, Diana McVeigh1, Esra Gucuk Ipek1, Alan Kwan1, Ronald D Berger1, Hugh Calkins1, Albert C Lardo1, Michael A Kraut1, Ihab R Kamel1, Stefan L Zimmerman1, Henry R Halperin1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients who have pacemakers or defibrillators are often denied the opportunity to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) because of safety concerns, unless the devices meet certain criteria specified by the Food and Drug Administration (termed "MRI-conditional" devices).
METHODS: We performed a prospective, nonrandomized study to assess the safety of MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 Tesla in 1509 patients who had a pacemaker (58%) or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (42%) that was not considered to be MRI-conditional (termed a "legacy" device). Overall, the patients underwent 2103 thoracic and nonthoracic MRI examinations that were deemed to be clinically necessary. The pacing mode was changed to asynchronous mode for pacing-dependent patients and to demand mode for other patients. Tachyarrhythmia functions were disabled. Outcome assessments included adverse events and changes in the variables that indicate lead and generator function and interaction with surrounding tissue (device parameters).
RESULTS: No long-term clinically significant adverse events were reported. In nine MRI examinations (0.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.7), the patient's device reset to a backup mode. The reset was transient in eight of the nine examinations. In one case, a pacemaker with less than 1 month left of battery life reset to ventricular inhibited pacing and could not be reprogrammed; the device was subsequently replaced. The most common notable change in device parameters (>50% change from baseline) immediately after MRI was a decrease in P-wave amplitude, which occurred in 1% of the patients. At long-term follow-up (results of which were available for 63% of the patients), the most common notable changes from baseline were decreases in P-wave amplitude (in 4% of the patients), increases in atrial capture threshold (4%), increases in right ventricular capture threshold (4%), and increases in left ventricular capture threshold (3%). The observed changes in lead parameters were not clinically significant and did not require device revision or reprogramming.
CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the safety of MRI, performed with the use of a prespecified safety protocol, in 1509 patients who had a legacy pacemaker or a legacy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system. No long-term clinically significant adverse events were reported. (Funded by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01130896 .).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29281579      PMCID: PMC5894885          DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1604267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  43 in total

1.  Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with permanent pacemakers: a collaborative clinical approach.

Authors:  Barry Anthony Boilson; Anita Wokhlu; Nancy G Acker; Joel P Felmlee; Robert E Watson; Paul R Julsrud; Paul A Friedman; Yong-Mei Cha; Robert F Rea; David L Hayes; Win-Kuang Shen
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Can patients with implantable pacemakers safely undergo magnetic resonance imaging?

Authors:  J Rod Gimbel; Emanuel Kanal
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers.

Authors:  J R Gimbel; D Johnson; P A Levine; B L Wilkoff
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 1.976

4.  Strategy for safe performance of extrathoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 tesla in the presence of cardiac pacemakers in non-pacemaker-dependent patients: a prospective study with 115 examinations.

Authors:  Torsten Sommer; Claas P Naehle; Alexander Yang; Volkert Zeijlemaker; Matthias Hackenbroch; Alexandra Schmiedel; Carsten Meyer; Katharina Strach; Dirk Skowasch; Christian Vahlhaus; Harold Litt; Hans Schild
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Outcome of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

Authors:  J Rod Gimbel; Emanuel Kanal; Kerry M Schwartz; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.976

6.  Safety of serial MRI in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  M Juhani Junttila; Joel E Fishman; Gustavo A Lopera; Pradip M Pattany; Darcy L Velazquez; Adam R Williams; Barry H Trachtenberg; Cristina Sanina; Jacques Mather; Joshua M Hare
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  Strategies for the safe magnetic resonance imaging of pacemaker-dependent patients.

Authors:  J Rod Gimbel; Shane M Bailey; Patrick J Tchou; Paul M Ruggieri; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.976

8.  Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimeter of MRI-related implant heating.

Authors:  Kenneth B Baker; Jean A Tkach; John A Nyenhuis; Michael Phillips; Frank G Shellock; Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez; Ali R Rezai
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5-T in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Claas P Naehle; Katharina Strach; Daniel Thomas; Carsten Meyer; Markus Linhart; Sascha Bitaraf; Harold Litt; Jörg Otto Schwab; Hans Schild; Torsten Sommer
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  Safety of magnetic resonance scanning without monitoring of patients with pacemakers.

Authors:  Litten Bertelsen; Helen Høgh Petersen; Berit Thornvig Philbert; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Carsten Thomsen; Niels Vejlstrup
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 5.214

View more
  59 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance imaging in children with implants.

Authors:  Camilo Jaimes; Diane Biaggotti; Gayathri Sreedher; Apeksha Chaturvedi; Michael M Moore; Amy R Danehy
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2021-04-19

Review 2.  Viewpoint: Cardiac implantable electronic devices and magnetic resonance compatibility: was it really necessary?

Authors:  Richard Sutton; David G Benditt
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Noninvasive Arterial Testing: What and When to Use.

Authors:  Derek Mittleider
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 4.  Advances in MRI Applications to Diagnose and Manage Cardiomyopathies.

Authors:  Ramya Vajapey; Brendan Eck; Wilson Tang; Deborah H Kwon
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2019-11-27

5.  Computed tomography continues to be the preferred tomographic imaging technology for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices despite a potential risk of electrical interference by irradiation.

Authors:  Takumi Yamada
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Imaging: Pacemakers, ICDs, and MRI.

Authors:  Irene Fernández-Ruiz
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 32.419

7.  Assessing the safety of magnetic resonance imaging in cardiac device carriers.

Authors:  Elisa Gesu; Giorgio Colombo; Jane Victoria Moffat
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.397

8.  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

Review 9.  An overview of non-invasive imaging modalities for diagnosis of solid and cystic renal lesions.

Authors:  Ravinder Kaur; Mamta Juneja; A K Mandal
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging of patients with epicardial leads: in vitro evaluation of temperature changes at the lead tip.

Authors:  Christian Balmer; Matthias Gass; Hitendu Dave; Firat Duru; Roger Luechinger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.