Literature DB >> 29458192

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in nonconditional pacemaker and defibrillator recipients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Anand D Shah1, Mike A Morris2, David S Hirsh3, Megan Warnock4, Yijian Huang4, Michael Mollerus5, Faisal M Merchant3, Anshul M Patel3, David B Delurgio3, Adarsh U Patel3, Michael H Hoskins3, Mikhael F El Chami3, Angel R Leon3, Jonathan J Langberg3, Michael S Lloyd3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in non-MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator recipients are evolving. Previous studies have suggested low adverse event rates with MRI in nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recipients, but low power limits optimal characterization of risk.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize the clinical risk associated with MRI in CIED recipients in order to improve power.
METHODS: PubMed and CINAHL indexed articles from 1990 to 2017 were queried. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis of continuous variables. Safety outcomes were evaluated with descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Seventy studies of non-MRI conditional devices undergoing MRI were identified, allowing for analysis of 5099 patients who underwent a total of 5908 MRI studies. Heterogeneity in lead parameter changes was observed within studies, although smaller variances were noted between studies. All lead characteristics and battery voltages showed very small, clinically insignificant changes when assessed as a pooled cohort, although cases of clinically relevant outcomes were also noted (lead failure 3, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock 1, electrical reset 94). Electrical resets were found only in older devices. Defibrillator function was unchanged, and inappropriate shocks were avoided with pre-MRI programming changes.
CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated low lead failure and clinical event rates in non-MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator recipients undergoing MRI. Observed changes were small and interstudy variance was low, suggesting that the composite event rates offer a reasonable estimate of true effect. The observed adverse events reinforce the need for ongoing vigilance and caution, particularly with older devices.
Copyright © 2018 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Defibrillator; Electromagnetic interference; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pacemaker; Reset

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29458192     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.02.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  11 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Multi-modal imaging of the pediatric heart transplant recipient.

Authors:  Jonathan H Soslow; Margaret M Samyn
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2019-10

Review 4.  [Safe MRI examinations in patients with pacemakers and ICD].

Authors:  D Beitzke
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 5.  Role of Cardiac MRI Imaging of Focal and Diffuse Inflammation and Fibrosis in Cardiomyopathy Patients Who Have Pacemakers/ICD Devices.

Authors:  Ananna Zaman; Samantha Zhao; Jordana Kron; Antonio Abbate; Anna Tomdio; W Gregory Hundley; Jennifer H Jordan
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 3.955

6.  MRI of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

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

7.  Adding wisdom to 'smart' bioelectronic systems: a design framework for physiologic control including practical examples.

Authors:  Aysegul Gunduz; Enrico Opri; Ro'ee Gilron; Vaclav Kremen; Gregory Worrell; Phil Starr; Kent Leyde; Timothy Denison
Journal:  Bioelectron Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-05-30

Review 8.  Non-traditional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator configurations and insertion techniques: a review of contemporary options.

Authors:  Johanna B Tonko; Christopher A Rinaldi
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 5.214

9.  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

10.  2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

Authors:  Maully J Shah; Michael J Silka; Jennifer N Avari Silva; Seshadri Balaji; Cheyenne M Beach; Monica N Benjamin; Charles I Berul; Bryan Cannon; Frank Cecchin; Mitchell I Cohen; Aarti S Dalal; Brynn E Dechert; Anne Foster; Roman Gebauer; M Cecilia Gonzalez Corcia; Prince J Kannankeril; Peter P Karpawich; Jeffery J Kim; Mani Ram Krishna; Peter Kubuš; Martin J LaPage; Douglas Y Mah; Lindsey Malloy-Walton; Aya Miyazaki; Kara S Motonaga; Mary C Niu; Melissa Olen; Thomas Paul; Eric Rosenthal; Elizabeth V Saarel; Massimo Stefano Silvetti; Elizabeth A Stephenson; Reina B Tan; John Triedman; Nicholas H Von Bergen; Philip L Wackel
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2021-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.