Literature DB >> 33778621

Safety and Clinical Impact of MRI in Patients with Non-MRI-conditional Cardiac Devices.

Sanjaya K Gupta1, Lina Ya'qoub1, Alan P Wimmer1, Stanley Fisher1, Ibrahim M Saeed1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore the safety and clinical utility of MRI in participants with non-MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices, by establishing the Patient Registry of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Approved DEvices (PROMeNADe).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2015 to June 2019, 532 participants (211 women) with a mean age of 69 years ± 14 (standard deviation) were enrolled prospectively in the PROMeNADe registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081364) and underwent a total of 608 MRI examinations (61 cardiac MRI examinations). All participants had device interrogations performed before and after each MRI. Pacemaker-dependent patients received asynchronous pacing. Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) had tachycardia therapies disabled during the MRI. An electrophysiology nurse monitored participants for any hemodynamic or rhythm abnormalities. Referring physicians were surveyed regarding the clinical utility of the MRI. Standard descriptive analyses included summary statistics with percentages and means.
RESULTS: Cardiac devices included pacemakers (46%), ICDs (30%), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacemakers (4%), and CRT defibrillators (17%), as well as abandoned leads (2%). Pacemaker-dependent patients comprised 27% of all MRI examinations. There were no patient- or device-related complications. Clinical utility surveys of MRI examinations were completed by 150 physicians. According to the survey responses, these MRI examinations changed the suspected diagnosis 25% of the time and changed suspected prognosis in 26% of participants, with planned medical or surgical treatment being changed 42% of the time.
CONCLUSION: This registry demonstrates that MRI examinations, including thoracic MRI examinations, can be performed safely in patients who have non-MRI-conditional devices, in pacemaker-dependent patients with ICDs, and in patients with abandoned leads. These MRI examinations can have a substantial impact on patient care, justifying the extensive resources used to perform them.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020See also the commentary by Peshock in this issue. 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33778621      PMCID: PMC7977944          DOI: 10.1148/ryct.2020200086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging        ISSN: 2638-6135


  24 in total

1.  MR imaging and cardiac pacemakers: in-vitro evaluation and in-vivo studies in 51 patients at 0.5 T.

Authors:  T Sommer; C Vahlhaus; G Lauck; A von Smekal; M Reinke; U Hofer; W Block; F Träber; C Schneider; J Gieseke; W Jung; H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Government viewpoint: U.S. Food & Drug Administration: Pacemakers, ICDs and MRI.

Authors:  Owen P Faris; Mitchell J Shein
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.976

3.  The dependence of radiofrequency induced pacemaker lead tip heating on the electrical conductivity of the medium at the lead tip.

Authors:  Deborah A Langman; Ira B Goldberg; Jack Judy; J Paul Finn; Daniel B Ennis
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Outcomes after magnetic resonance imaging in patients with pacemakers and defibrillators and abandoned leads.

Authors:  Michael F Morris; Divya Ratan Verma; Hasaam Sheikh; Wilber Su; Ashish Pershad
Journal:  Cardiovasc Revasc Med       Date:  2018-02-14

5.  MRI and Patients with Non-MRI-Conditional Cardiac Devices: Further Evidence of Safety.

Authors:  Frank G Shellock
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Safety and utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Authors:  Jordan B Strom; Jill B Whelan; Changyu Shen; Shuang Qi Zheng; Koenraad J Mortele; Daniel B Kramer
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  MR Imaging in Patients with Cardiac Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

Authors:  Torsten Sommer; Wolfgang Bauer; Katharina Fischbach; Christof Kolb; Roger Luechinger; Uwe Wiegand; Joachim Lotz; Ingo Eitel; Matthias Gutberlet; Holger Thiele; Hans H Schild; Malte Kelm; Harald H Quick; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Jörg Barkhausen; Dietmar Bänsch
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2017-02-15

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-Tesla.

Authors:  Edward T Martin; James A Coman; Frank G Shellock; Christopher C Pulling; Robert Fair; Kim Jenkins
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  5 in total

1.  Outcome of MRI in Patients with Nonconditional Devices with Mismatch between Manufacturer of Leads and Generator.

Authors:  Osama Okasha; Ibrahim M Saeed; Sanjaya K Gupta
Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging       Date:  2022-05-19

2.  Reducing cardiac implantable electronic device-induced artefacts in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Aino-Maija Vuorinen; Lauri Lehmonen; Jarkko Karvonen; Miia Holmström; Sari Kivistö; Touko Kaasalainen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 7.034

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging interactions with a sacral neuromodulation system.

Authors:  Xuechen Huang; Guangqiang Jay Jiang
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 2.367

4.  Magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator and two abandoned leads.

Authors:  Enzo Lüsebrink; Stefan Kääb; Stephanie Fichtner
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2022-06-26

5.  Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Authors:  Anish N Bhuva; Russell Moralee; Tamara Brunker; Karen Lascelles; Lizette Cash; Kush P Patel; Martin Lowe; Neha Sekhri; Francisco Alpendurada; Dudley J Pennell; Richard Schilling; Pier D Lambiase; Anthony Chow; James C Moon; Harold Litt; A John Baksi; Charlotte H Manisty
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 35.855

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.