Cargando…
Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9259370/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34435642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab350 |
_version_ | 1784741764298440704 |
---|---|
author | 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 |
author_facet | 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 |
author_sort | Bhuva, Anish N |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9259370 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92593702022-07-07 Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices 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 Eur Heart J Clinical Research 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. Oxford University Press 2021-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9259370/ /pubmed/34435642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab350 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Research 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 Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
title | Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
title_full | Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
title_fullStr | Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
title_full_unstemmed | Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
title_short | Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
title_sort | evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices |
topic | Clinical Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9259370/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34435642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab350 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bhuvaanishn evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT moraleerussell evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT brunkertamara evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT lascelleskaren evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT cashlizette evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT patelkushp evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT lowemartin evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT sekhrineha evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT alpenduradafrancisco evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT pennelldudleyj evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT schillingrichard evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT lambiasepierd evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT chowanthony evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT moonjamesc evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT littharold evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT baksiajohn evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices AT manistycharlotteh evidencetosupportmagneticresonanceconditionallabellingofallpacemakeranddefibrillatorleadsinpatientswithcardiacimplantableelectronicdevices |