Cargando…

Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional permanent pacemakers has increased significantly. In this meta-analysis, we examine the safety of MRI-conditional pacing systems in comparison with conventional systems. METHODS: An electronic search was performed using major databa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shurrab, M., Kaoutskaia, A., Baranchuk, A., Lau, C., Singarajah, T., Lashevsky, I., Newman, D., Healey, J. S., Crystal, E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5910305/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29411288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-018-1086-4
_version_ 1783316020711129088
author Shurrab, M.
Kaoutskaia, A.
Baranchuk, A.
Lau, C.
Singarajah, T.
Lashevsky, I.
Newman, D.
Healey, J. S.
Crystal, E.
author_facet Shurrab, M.
Kaoutskaia, A.
Baranchuk, A.
Lau, C.
Singarajah, T.
Lashevsky, I.
Newman, D.
Healey, J. S.
Crystal, E.
author_sort Shurrab, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional permanent pacemakers has increased significantly. In this meta-analysis, we examine the safety of MRI-conditional pacing systems in comparison with conventional systems. METHODS: An electronic search was performed using major databases, including studies that compared the outcomes of interest between patients receiving MRI-conditional pacemakers (MRI group) versus conventional pacemakers (control group). RESULTS: Six studies (5 retrospective and 1 prospective non-randomised) involving 2,118 adult patients were identified. The MRI-conditional pacemakers, deployed in 969 patients, were all from a single manufacturer (Medtronic Pacing System with 5086 leads). The rate of pacemaker lead dislodgement (atrial and ventricular) was significantly higher in the MRI group (3% vs. 1%, OR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26; 4.83), p = 0.008). The MRI group had a significantly higher rate of pericardial complications (2% vs. 1%, OR 4.23 (95% CI 1.18; 15.10), p = 0.03) and a numerically higher overall complication rate in comparison with the conventional group (6% vs. 3%, OR 2.02 (95% CI 0.88; 4.66), p = 0.10) but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the rates of pacemaker lead dislodgement and pericardial complications were significantly higher with the Medtronic MRI-conditional pacing system.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5910305
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59103052018-04-24 Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis Shurrab, M. Kaoutskaia, A. Baranchuk, A. Lau, C. Singarajah, T. Lashevsky, I. Newman, D. Healey, J. S. Crystal, E. Neth Heart J Review Article BACKGROUND: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional permanent pacemakers has increased significantly. In this meta-analysis, we examine the safety of MRI-conditional pacing systems in comparison with conventional systems. METHODS: An electronic search was performed using major databases, including studies that compared the outcomes of interest between patients receiving MRI-conditional pacemakers (MRI group) versus conventional pacemakers (control group). RESULTS: Six studies (5 retrospective and 1 prospective non-randomised) involving 2,118 adult patients were identified. The MRI-conditional pacemakers, deployed in 969 patients, were all from a single manufacturer (Medtronic Pacing System with 5086 leads). The rate of pacemaker lead dislodgement (atrial and ventricular) was significantly higher in the MRI group (3% vs. 1%, OR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26; 4.83), p = 0.008). The MRI group had a significantly higher rate of pericardial complications (2% vs. 1%, OR 4.23 (95% CI 1.18; 15.10), p = 0.03) and a numerically higher overall complication rate in comparison with the conventional group (6% vs. 3%, OR 2.02 (95% CI 0.88; 4.66), p = 0.10) but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the rates of pacemaker lead dislodgement and pericardial complications were significantly higher with the Medtronic MRI-conditional pacing system. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2018-02-06 2018-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5910305/ /pubmed/29411288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-018-1086-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review Article
Shurrab, M.
Kaoutskaia, A.
Baranchuk, A.
Lau, C.
Singarajah, T.
Lashevsky, I.
Newman, D.
Healey, J. S.
Crystal, E.
Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis
title Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis
title_full Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis
title_short Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System?: A meta-analysis
title_sort are there increased periprocedural complications with the mri-conditional medtronic revo surescan pacing system?: a meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5910305/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29411288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-018-1086-4
work_keys_str_mv AT shurrabm arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT kaoutskaiaa arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT baranchuka arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT lauc arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT singarajaht arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT lashevskyi arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT newmand arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT healeyjs arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis
AT crystale arethereincreasedperiproceduralcomplicationswiththemriconditionalmedtronicrevosurescanpacingsystemametaanalysis