Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. (26th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bhuva, Anish N; Moralee, Russell; Brunker, Tamara; Lascelles, Karen; Cash, Lizette; Patel, Kush P; Lowe, Martin; Sekhri, Neha; Alpendurada, Francisco; Pennell, Dudley J; Schilling, Richard; Lambiase, Pier D; Chow, Anthony; Moon, James C; Litt, Harold; Baksi, A John; Manisty, Charlotte H
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 43:Number 26(2022)
• Page Start: 2469
• Page End: 2478
• Publication Date: 2021-08-26
• Subjects: Pacemaker -- Defibrillator -- Magnetic resonance imaging; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab350
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Many cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are not approved by regulators for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Even following generator exchange to an approved magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional model, many systems remain classified 'non-MR conditional' due to the leads. This classification makes patient access to MRI challenging, but there is no evidence of increased clinical risk. We compared the effect of MRI on non-MR conditional and MR-conditional pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Methods and results: Patients undergoing clinical 1.5T MRI with pacemakers and defibrillators in three centres over 5 years were included. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols were similar for MR-conditional and non-MR conditional systems. Devices were interrogated pre- and immediately post-scan, and at follow-up, and adverse clinical events recorded. Lead parameter changes peri-scan were stratified by MR-conditional labelling. A total of 1148 MRI examinations were performed in 970 patients (54% non-MR conditional systems, 39% defibrillators, 15% pacing-dependent) with 2268 leads. There were no lead-related adverse clinical events, and no clinically significant immediate or late lead parameter changes following MRI in either MR-conditional or non-MR conditional leads. Small reductions in atrial and right ventricular sensed amplitudes and impedances were similar between groups, with no difference in the proportion of leads with parameter changes greater than pre-defined thresholds (7.1%, 95% confidence interval: 6.1–8.3). Conclusions: There was no increased risk of MRI in patients with non-MR conditional pacemaker or defibrillator leads when following recommended protocols. Standardizing MR conditions for all leads would significantly improve access to MRI by enabling patients to be scanned in non-specialist centres, with no discernible incremental risk. Graphical Abstract: