Korean Circulation Journal

The Korean Society of Cardiology (대한심장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Safety during Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • Hwang, You Mi (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jun (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Ji Hyun (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Minsu (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Nam, Gi-Byoung (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Kee-Joon (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, You-Ho (Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.02.17
  • Accepted : 2016.05.31
  • Published : 2016.11.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have become recently available, non-MRI conditional devices and the presence of epicardial and abandoned leads remain a contraindication for MRIs. Subjects and Methods: This was a single center retrospective study, evaluating the clinical outcomes and device parameter changes in patients with CIEDs who underwent an MRI from June 1992 to March 2015. Clinical and device related information was acquired by a thorough chart review. Results: A total of 40 patients, 38 with a pacemaker (including epicardially located pacemaker leads) and 2 with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, underwent 50 MRI examinations. Among the patients, 11 had MRI conditional CIEDs, while the remaining had non-MRI conditional devices. Among these patients, 23 patients had traditional contraindications for an MRI: (1) nonfunctional leads (n=1, 2.5%), (2) epicardially located leads (n=9, 22.5%), (3) scanning area in proximity to a device (n=9, 22.5%), (4) devices implanted within 6 weeks (n=2, 5%), and (5) MRI field strength at 3.0 Tesla (n=6, 15%). All patients underwent a satisfactory MRI examination with no adverse events during or after the procedure. There were no significant changes in parameters or malfunctioning devices in any patients with CIEDs. Conclusion: Under careful monitoring, MRI is safe to perform on patients with non-MRI conditional CIEDs, remnant leads, and epicardially located leads, as well as MRI-conditional devices.

Keywords

References

  1. Erlebacher JA, Cahill PT, Pannizzo F, Knowles RJ. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on DDD pacemakers. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:437-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(86)90768-X
  2. Keller J, Neuzil P, Vymazal J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Europace 2015;17:761-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu377
  3. Rickard J, Taborsky M, Bello D, et al. Short- and long-term electrical performance of the 5086MRI pacing lead. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:222-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.10.056
  4. Bailey WM, Rosenthal L, Fananapazir L, et al. Clinical safety of the ProMRI pacemaker system in patients subjected to head and lower lumbar 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging scanning conditions. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:1183-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.02.010
  5. Kypta A, Blessberger H, Hoenig S, et al. Clinical safety of an MRI conditional implantable cardioverter defibrillator system: A prospective Monocenter ICD-Magnetic resonance Imaging feasibility study (MIMI). J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:574-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25037
  6. Langman DA, Finn JP, Ennis DB. Abandoned pacemaker leads are a potential risk for patients undergoing MRI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2011;34:1051-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03176.x
  7. Misiri J, Kusumoto F, Goldschlager N. Electromagnetic interference and implanted cardiac devices: the nonmedical environment (part I). Clin Cardiol 2012;35:276-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.21998
  8. Nazarian S, Roguin A, Zviman MM, et al. Clinical utility and safety of a protocol for noncardiac and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with permanent pacemakers and implantablecardioverter defibrillators at 1.5 tesla. Circulation 2006;114:1277-84. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.607655
  9. Gimbel JR, Johnson D, Levine PA, Wilkoff BL. Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996;19:913-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03387.x
  10. Sommer T, Naehle CP, Yang A, et al. 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. Circulation 2006;114:1285-92. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.597013
  11. Roguin A. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:556-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.047
  12. Gimbel JR. The safety of MRI scanning of pacemakers and ICDs: what are the critical elements of safe scanning? Ask me again at 10,000. Europace 2010;12:915-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq174
  13. Pohost GM, Johnson LL. Indications for thallium scanning. Heart Dis Stroke 1992;1:348-52.
  14. Fetter J, Aram G, Holmes DR Jr, Gray JE, Hayes DL. The effects of nuclear magnetic resonance imagers on external and implantable pulse generators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1984;7:720-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1984.tb05602.x
  15. Pulver AF, Puchalski MD, Bradley DJ, et al. Safety and imaging quality of MRI in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease patients with pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009;32:450-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02304.x
  16. Gimbel JR, Bello D, Schmitt M, et al. Randomized trial of pacemaker and lead system for safe scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Heart Rhythm 2013;10:685-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.01.022
  17. Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M, Lucca J. Magnetic resonance imaging of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without specific absorption rate restrictions. Europace 2010;12:947-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq092
  18. Wollmann CG, Thudt K, Kaiser B, Salomonowitz E, Mayr H, Globits S. Safe performance of magnetic resonance of the heart in patients with magnetic resonance conditional pacemaker systems: the safety issue of the ESTIMATE study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2014;16:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-16-30
  19. Higgins JV, Gard JJ, Sheldon SH, et al. Safety and outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with abandoned pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014;37:1284-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.12419
  20. Sheldon SH, Bunch TJ, Cogert GA, et al. Multicenter study of the safety and effects of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with coronary sinus left ventricular pacing leads. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:345-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.11.037
  21. Beinart R, Nazarian S. Effects of external electrical and magnetic fields on pacemakers and defibrillators: from engineering principles to clinical practice. Circulation 2013;128:2799-809. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005697
  22. Wollmann C, Grude M, Tombach B, et al. Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on a patient with an ICD. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005;28:339-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.09535.x
  23. Langman DA, Goldberg IB, Finn JP, Ennis DB. Pacemaker lead tip heating in abandoned and pacemaker-attached leads at 1.5 Tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;33:426-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22463
  24. Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology 2004;232:635-52. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323030830
  25. Verma A, Ha AC, Dennie C, et al. Canadian Heart Rhythm Society and Canadian Association of Radiologists consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Can Assoc Radiol J 2014;65:290-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2014.08.001
  26. Mitka M. First MRI-safe pacemaker receives conditional approval from FDA. JAMA 2011;305:985-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.273

Cited by

  1. An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardiovert vol.28, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5098-z
  2. Cardiac implanted electronic devices and MRI safety in 2018-the state of play vol.28, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5396-0
  3. MR Imaging of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): Implementing a Program and Optimizing CMR vol.6, pp.11, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0301-9
  4. Magnetic resonance imaging in non-conditional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.22, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz343
  5. MRI in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with CIEDs and epicardial or abandoned leads vol.43, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.13984
  6. Deep Learning-Based Algorithm for the Detection and Characterization of MRI Safety of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices on Chest Radiographs vol.22, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0201
  7. Cardiac implantable therapeutic medical devices: A narrative review vol.10, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4103/2221-6189.316672