Literature DB >> 31624965

Feasibility, safety, and utility of brain MRI for patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIED.

Julie Mayeku1, Daniel Kramer2, Anand Mahadevan3, Rafael Rojas4, Rafeeque Bhadelia4, Koenraad J Mortele2, Ekkehard M Kasper5.   

Abstract

Feasibility, safety, and utility of brain MRI for patients with non-MRI-conditioned cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) remains controversial. While a growing number of studies have shown safe employment in select patients under strict protocols, there is an increasing clinical need for further off-label investigations. To assess the feasibility and utility of brain MRI in neurological and neurosurgical patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIEDs using off-label protocol. We retrospectively evaluated 126 patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIEDs referred to our hospital between 2014 to 2018 for MRI under an IRB-approved protocol. A total of 126 off-label brain MRI scans were performed. The mean age was 67.5 ± 13.0. Seventy percent of scans were performed on female patients. Indications for MRI are neurosurgical (45.2%), neurological (51.6%), and others (3.2%). MRI utilization for tumor cases was highest for tumor cases (68.3%), but employment was valuable for vascular (12.7%), deep brain stimulators (3.2%), and other cases (15.9%). In the tumor category, (37.2%) of the scans were performed for initial diagnosis and pre-surgical planning, (47.7%) for post-intervention evaluation/surveillance, (15.1%) for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment (CyberKnife). No clinical complications were encountered. No functional device complications of the CIED were identified during and after the MRI in 96.9% of the studies. A 49.6% of the off-label brain MRI scans performed led to a clinically significant decision and/or intervention for the patients. A 42.9% of obtained MRI studies did not change the plan of care. A 7.9% of post-scan decision-making data was not available. We demonstrate that off-label brain MRI scans performed on select patients under a strict protocol is feasible, safe, and relevant. Almost 50% of scans provided critical information resulting in clinical intervention of the patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs); Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31624965     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-019-01149-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  13 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance imaging in individuals with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

Authors:  Ariel Roguin; Juerg Schwitter; Christian Vahlhaus; Massimo Lombardi; Josep Brugada; Panos Vardas; Angelo Auricchio; Silvia Priori; Torsten Sommer
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.214

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and pacemakers.

Authors:  Ariel Roguin
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Canadian Heart Rhythm Society and Canadian Association of Radiologists consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Authors:  Atul Verma; Andrew C T Ha; Carole Dennie; Vidal Essebag; Derek V Exner; Naeem Khan; Chris Lane; Jonathan Leipsic; Francois Philippon; Marcos Sampaio; Nicola Schieda; Colette Seifer; Alain Berthiaume; Debra Campbell; Santanu Chakraborty
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.223

4.  Determining the risks of magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 tesla for patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  Jennifer D Cohen; Heather S Costa; Robert J Russo
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance imaging and implantable devices.

Authors:  Saman Nazarian; Roy Beinart; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-04

Review 6.  Central nervous system MRI and cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Authors:  Romain Cadieu; Marilyne Peron; Florent Le Ven; Sébastien Kerdraon; Claire Boutet; Jacques Mansourati; Douraied Ben Salem
Journal:  J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 3.447

7.  A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices.

Authors:  Saman Nazarian; Rozann Hansford; Ariel Roguin; Dorith Goldsher; Menekhem M Zviman; Albert C Lardo; Brian S Caffo; Kevin D Frick; Michael A Kraut; Ihab R Kamel; Hugh Calkins; Ronald D Berger; David A Bluemke; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Clinical utility and safety of a protocol for noncardiac and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable-cardioverter defibrillators at 1.5 tesla.

Authors:  Saman Nazarian; Ariel Roguin; Menekhem M Zviman; Albert C Lardo; Timm L Dickfeld; Hugh Calkins; Robert G Weiss; Ronald D Berger; David A Bluemke; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator.

Authors:  Robert J Russo; Heather S Costa; Patricia D Silva; Jeffrey L Anderson; Aysha Arshad; Robert W W Biederman; Noel G Boyle; Jennifer V Frabizzio; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Steven L Higgins; Rachel Lampert; Christian E Machado; Edward T Martin; Andrew L Rivard; Jason C Rubenstein; Raymond H M Schaerf; Jennifer D Schwartz; Dipan J Shah; Gery F Tomassoni; Gail T Tominaga; Allison E Tonkin; Seth Uretsky; Steven D Wolff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Implantable Electronic Cardiac Devices and Compatibility With Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Jared D Miller; Saman Nazarian; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 24.094

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.