Literature DB >> 9501932

[MRI in patients with cardiac pacemakers: in vitro and in vivo evaluation at 0.5 tesla].

T Sommer1, G Lauck, R Schimpf, A von Smekal, S Wolke, W Block, J Gieseke, C Schneider, H D Funke, H Schild.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: MRI is currently regarded as absolutely contraindicated in patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers. In this prospective study safety and feasibility of MRI in patients with new generation pacemakers (PM) was evaluated in vitro and in vivo.
METHODS: 14 PM models in vitro and 18 patients with implanted new generation PM underwent a MRI exam at 0.5 Tesla with standard spin, turbo spin, and gradient echo (FFE) sequences under continuous ECG-monitoring. PM inquiry was performed before and after the MRI exam, including assessment of stimulation thresholds.
RESULTS: In the static magnetic field all PM switched to the asynchronous mode due to activation of the Reed switch, resulting in continuous pacing at a fixed rate. In three PM models in vitro, however, after activation of the Reed switch, there was a software-induced switch back to the demand mode. In these PM inhibition and triggering were observed after starting the MRI scan due to influence of the pulsed magnetic fields. PM program changes, damage of PM components, dislocation/torque of the PM and rapid pacing of the PM were observed neither in vitro nor in vivo. Atrial and ventricular stimulation thresholds remained unchanged.
CONCLUSION: MRI at 0.5 Tesla should not be regarded as absolutely contraindicated in patients with implanted new generation PM. However, knowledge of the behaviour of the specific PM model in static and pulsed magnetic fields is required, if necessary also changes of the PM program prior to the MRI exam, continuous ECG monitoring and cardiological stand-by.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9501932     DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1015179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rofo        ISSN: 1438-9010


  8 in total

1.  Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis in patients with anal dynamic graciloplasty: initial experience.

Authors:  A Cavallaro; F Fellner; K E Matzel; U Stadelmaier; T Rupprecht; B Böwing; W Hohenberger; W Bautz
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.310

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a single-center prospective study.

Authors:  Mrinal Yadava; Matthew Nugent; Angela Krebsbach; Jessica Minnier; Peter Jessel; Charles A Henrikson
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-07-22       Impact factor: 1.900

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.  MR imaging of lung parenchyma at 0.2 T: evaluation of imaging techniques, comparative study with chest radiography and interobserver analysis.

Authors:  Nasreddin D Abolmaali; Jan Schmitt; Sabine Krauss; Frank Bretz; Michael Deimling; Volkmar Jacobi; Thomas J Vogl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  MRI in patients with cardiac devices.

Authors:  Edward T Martin; David A Sandler
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 6.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers: era of "MR Conditional" designs.

Authors:  Jerold S Shinbane; Patrick M Colletti; Frank G Shellock
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: how far have we come?

Authors:  Peter Nordbeck; Georg Ertl; Oliver Ritter
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 8.  Patient safety issues in magnetic resonance imaging: state of the art.

Authors:  A Stecco; A Saponaro; A Carriero
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 6.313

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.