Safety and efficiency of low-field magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac rhythm management devices. Issue 118 (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schukro, Christoph; Puchner, Stefan B.
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 118(2019)
• Page Start: 96
• Page End: 100
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Low-field magnetic resonance imaging -- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator -- Pacemaker -- Cardiac resynchronization therapy -- Safety; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Highlights: Low-field MRI is safe in patients with pacemakers and implantable defibrillators Presence of abandoned leads or pacemaker-dependency revealed no complications Low-field MRI is efficient for routine diagnostic scans of many regions of interest Abstract: Purpose: Low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), i.e. MRI with a static magnetic field strength <0.5 T, has been reported to be safe in patients with pacemakers, however there are no data about the safety of low-field MRI in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to investigate the safety and diagnostic efficiency of routine low-field MRI in patients with different devices for cardiac rhythm management (i.e. pacemakers and ICD, including devices with CRT). Method: MRI scans of 446 regions of interest were evaluated with field strength of 0.2 T in 338 patients (62% male; age at MRI scan 76.1 ± 9.2 years; time since device implantation 4.1 ± 3.2 years) with cardiac rhythm management devices (298 pacemakers, 25 ICD, 8 CRT-ICD, and 7 CRT pacemakers). This analysis included 62 pacemaker-dependent patients (18.3%), 52 patients with 1.5-Tesla-MR conditional pacemakers (15.4%) and 13 patients with abandoned leads (3.9%). Results: Except for one examination, which was interrupted because of recurrent severe nausea, all MRI scans could be analyzed efficiently. No induction of arrhythmia or inhibition of pacemaker function occurred. Compared to the device interrogation before MRI, there were no significant changes in battery voltage, pacing capture threshold, sensing of intrinsic ECG, lead impedance, as well as shock impedance in ICD devices after completed examination. Conclusions: Low-field MRI examinations (0.2 T) were efficient and safe regarding clinical and technical complications in patients with devices for cardiac rhythm management, even in case of pacemaker-dependency or the presence of abandoned leads.