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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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