Cargando…
Monocenter feasibility study of the MRI compatibility of the Evia pacemaker in combination with Safio S pacemaker lead
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the magnetic resonance (MR) conditional pacemaker (PM) system (Evia SR-T and DR-T with Safio S leads) under MR conditions. METHODS: Patients with standard PM indications and Evia PM were eligible for enrollment in this single c...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482396/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23009683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-14-67 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the magnetic resonance (MR) conditional pacemaker (PM) system (Evia SR-T and DR-T with Safio S leads) under MR conditions. METHODS: Patients with standard PM indications and Evia PM were eligible for enrollment in this single center prospective non-randomized pilot study. Patients underwent MR of the brain and lower lumbar spine at 1.5 Tesla. Atrial (RA) und ventricular (RV) lead parameters (sensing, pacing threshold [PTH], pacing impedance) were assessed immediately before (baseline follow-up [FU]) and immediately after MRI (1(st) FU), after 1 month (2(nd) FU) and 3 months (3(rd) FU). The effect of MR on serious adverse device effect (SADE) free-rate, on atrial and ventricular sensing (AS/VS; mV) and atrial (RA) and ventricular (RV) pacing thresholds (PTH; V/0.4 ms) were investigated between baseline and 2(nd) FU. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD and were compared using paired Student’s t-test. A p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. One patient had to be excluded because of an enrollment violation. Therefore, data of 30 patients (female 12 [40%], age 73 ± 12 years, dual chamber PM 15 [50%]) were included in this analysis. No MR related SADE occurred. Lead measurements were not statistically different between the baseline FU and the 2(nd) FU (AS/VS at baseline 3.2 ± 2.1/15.0 ± 6.0, at 2(nd) FU 3.2 ± 2.1/14.9 ± 6.5; p = ns. RA-PTH/RV-PTH at baseline 0.68 ± 0.18/0.78 ± 0.22, at 2(nd) FU 0.71 ± 0.24/0.78 ± 0.22; p = ns). The presence of the permanent pacemakers led to MR imaging artifacts on diffusion weighted sequences of the brain, but did not affect other sequences (e.g. FLAIR and T2 weighted spin-echo images). CONCLUSION: The use of the MR conditional Evia PM in a MR environment under predefined conditions is feasible. No MR related SADEs nor clinically relevant changes in device functions occurred. |
---|