Evaluation of the safety of MRI scans in patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker implantation

Xiong,Minchao; Zhao,Nian; Qin,Yan; Min,Peng; Peng,Hong; Zhang,Yong; Fan,Bin

doi:10.3892/etm.2018.6392

Evaluation of the safety of MRI scans in patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker implantation

Authors:
- Minchao Xiong
- Nian Zhao
- Yan Qin
- Peng Min
- Hong Peng
- Yong Zhang
- Bin Fan
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, Ezhou Central Hospital, Ezhou, Hubei 436000, P.R. China, Medical Imaging Center, Dongfeng Hospital of Hubei Medical College, Shiyan, Hubei 442008, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Central Hospital of Huanggang, Huanggang, Hubei 438000, P.R. China
Published online on: July 2, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6392
Pages: 1593-1596
Copyright: © Xiong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker (Medtronic's EnRhythm MRI SureScan IPG (implantable pulse generator) and CapSureFix MRI pacing electrodes) implantation were evaluated. A total of 86 patients undergoing this pacemaker implantation who were admitted to Huanggang Hospital from June 2006 to March 2017 were continuously selected. On average 6.8±2.3 months after the implantation, the first MRI scan was conducted. The mean scan time was 2.2±0.9 and mean duration was 45.6±12.3 min; mean follow‑up visit period was 40.5±15.6 months, and after follow‑up, all the abnormal symptoms of patients and pacemaker abnormalities after scans were recorded. Causes of receiving MRI scans included neurological diseases (27%), spinal diseases (14%), cancers (26%), joint injuries (25%) and visceral systems (8%). A total of 12 cases (14.0%) showed significant discomfort symptoms, 10 cases (11.6%) showed pacemaker abnormalities, and the incidence rate was 25.6%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the basic types of cardiovascular diseases, dependence on pacemakers, duration of education, pacing threshold, impedance and MRI scan time were related to the occurrence of adverse scan results (p<0.05). In conclusion, MRI scans show that MRI-compatible dual-chamber pacemaker was relatively safe.

View Figures

View References

1	Jung W, Zvereva V, Hajredini B and Jäckle S: Safe magnetic resonance image scanning of the pacemaker patient: Current technologies and future directions. Europace. 14:631–637. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Nordbeck P, Ertl G and Ritter O: Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: How far have we come? Eur Heart J. 36:1505–1511. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Li Y, Han Z, Sun Y, Li A, Zhang W, Li A and Liu S: Endoscopic polypectomy for pacemaker patients: Is it safe? ANZ J Surg. 85:834–837. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Mesubi O, Ahmad G, Jeudy J, Jimenez A, Kuk R, Saliaris A, See V, Shorofsky S and Dickfeld T: Impact of ICD artifact burden on late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MR imaging in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 37:1274–1283. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Klein-Wiele O, Garmer M, Urbien R, Busch M, Kara K, Mateiescu S, Grönemeyer D, Schulte-Hermes M, Garbrecht M and Hailer B: Feasibility and safety of adenosine cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with MR conditional pacemaker systems at 1.5 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 17:1122015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Levine GN, Gomes AS, Arai AE, Bluemke DA, Flamm SD, Kanal E, Manning WJ, Martin ET, Smith JM, Wilke N, et al: American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation. 116:2878–2891. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Ferreira AM, Costa F, Tralhão A, Marques H, Cardim N and Adragão P: MRI-conditional pacemakers: Current perspectives. Med Devices (Auckl). 7:115–124. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
8	Shinbane JS, Colletti PM and Shellock FG: Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers: Era of ‘MR Conditional’ designs. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 13:632011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Wollmann CG, Thudt K, Kaiser B, Salomonowitz E, Mayr H and Globits S: Safe performance of magnetic resonance of the heart in patients with magnetic resonance conditional pacemaker systems: the safety issue of the ESTIMATE study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 16:302014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Sutton R, Kanal E, Wilkoff BL, Bello D, Luechinger R, Jenniskens I, Hull M and Sommer T: Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of patients with a new Medtronic EnRhythm MRI SureScan pacing system: Clinical study design. Trials. 9:682008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Nazarian S, Hansford R, Roguin A, Goldsher D, Zviman MM, Lardo AC, Caffo BS, Frick KD, Kraut MA, Kamel IR, et al: A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med. 155:415–424. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Roguin A, Schwitter J, Vahlhaus C, Lombardi M, Brugada J, Vardas P, Auricchio A, Priori S and Sommer T: Magnetic resonance imaging in individuals with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Europace. 10:336–346. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Nazarian S, Beinart R and Halperin HR: Magnetic resonance imaging and implantable devices. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 6:419–428. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Gimbel JR: Unexpected pacing inhibition upon exposure to the 3T static magnetic field prior to imaging acquisition: What is the mechanism? Heart Rhythm. 8:944–945. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Beinart R and Nazarian S: Effects of external electrical and magnetic fields on pacemakers and defibrillators: From engineering principles to clinical practice. Circulation. 128:2799–2809. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Tandri H, Zviman MM, Wedan SR, Lloyd T, Berger RD and Halperin H: Determinants of gradient field-induced current in a pacemaker lead system in a magnetic resonance imaging environment. Heart Rhythm. 5:462–468. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Calcagnini G, Triventi M, Censi F, Mattei E, Bartolini P, Kainz W and Bassen HI: In vitro investigation of pacemaker lead heating induced by magnetic resonance imaging: Role of implant geometry. J Magn Reson Imaging. 28:879–886. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M and Lucca J: Cardiac biomarkers in patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators undergoing an MRI scan. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 31:1241–1245. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Nordbeck P, Weiss I, Ehses P, Ritter O, Warmuth M, Fidler F, Herold V, Jakob PM, Ladd ME, Quick HH, et al: Measuring RF-induced currents inside implants: Impact of device configuration on MRI safety of cardiac pacemaker leads. Magn Reson Med. 61:570–578. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI