Watson, Robert E.

Extremely severe nausea was experienced by four subjects positioned prone on a 7T scanner table with their arm extended overhead for a wrist examination and their head positioned approximately 10–20 cm above the magnet's central axis. Movement through the large static and spatial field gradients of current 7T MRI scanner magnets typically causes mild vestibular activation which is well tolerated by most individuals. However, when positioned off‐axis, the head moves through regions of even larger and more rapidly changing magnetic fields which in the current study were sufficient to induce the extremely severe nausea. Ensuring the head remains on‐axis mitigates this effect.

Objective To describe the development, implementation, and validation of a radiology-administered protocol to obtain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cochlear implants and auditory brainstem implants without magnet removal. Study Design Retrospective review and description of novel care pathway. Methods A radiology-administered protocol was designed based on careful input from the radiology safety committee and neurotology. Radiology technologist training modules, consent instructions, patient educational material, clinical audits, and other safeguards were implemented, with samples provided in this report. The primary outcomes measured included instances of magnet displacement during MRI and premature termination of MRI studies secondary to pain. Results Between June 19, 2018, and October 12, 2021, 301 implanted ears underwent MRI without magnet removal, including 153 devices housing diametric MRI-conditional magnets, and 148 implants with conventional axial (i.e., nondiametric) magnets. Among cases with diametric MRI-conditional magnets, all studies were completed without magnet dislodgement or need to terminate imaging early due to pain. Among cases with conventional axial (nondiametric) magnets, 29 (19.6%) MRI studies were stopped prematurely secondary to pain or discomfort; the overall rate of this event was 9.6% (29 of 301) among the entire study cohort. In addition, 6.1% (9 of 148) experienced confirmed magnet displacement despite headwrap placement; the overall rate among all cases was 3.0% (9 of 301). Eight of these patients received successful external magnet reseating through manual pressure on the external scalp without surgery, and one required surgical replacement of the magnet in the operating room. There were no documented instances of hematoma, infection, device or magnet extrusion, internal device movement (i.e., gross receiver-stimulator migration), or device malfunction in this cohort related to MRI. Conclusions We present the successful implementation of a radiology-administered protocol designed to streamline care for cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant recipients who require MRI and ease clinical demands for otolaryngology providers. Examples of resources developed, including a process map, radiology training modules, consent instructions, patient educational materials, clinical audit, and other procedural safety measures are provided so interested groups may consider adapting and implementing related measures according to need.

Objective: To evaluate adverse events and feasibility of performing 1.5-T MRI in patients with cochlear implants (CI) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI). Setting: Single tertiary academic referral center. Patients: CI and ABI recipients undergoing 1.5-T MRI without internal magnet removal. Intervention(s): MRI after tight headwrap application. Main Outcome Measures: Adverse events, patient tolerance. Results: A total of 131 MR studies in 79 patients were performed, with a total of 157 study ears. Sixty-one patients (77%) had unilateral devices. Four patients (5%) underwent MRI with ABI magnets in place. Sixteen patients (20%) had MRI-compatible devices that did not require a head wrap. There were no instances of device stimulation, device malfunction, or excessive heating of the receiver-stimulator package. Magnet tilt requiring manual repositioning occurred during seven studies (4.5%) and magnet displacement requiring operative intervention occurred during seven studies (4.5%). Significant pain where imaging had to be discontinued occurred during three episodes (2%). No adverse events were noted among patients who underwent MRI with an MRI-compatible magnet. Conclusions: MRI with CI or ABI magnets in place is associated with a low prevalence of adverse events when performed in a controlled setting. Many partial magnet displacements can be corrected with firm manual pressure. Devices with magnets that align with the field within their housing were not associated with any adverse events and do not require immobilization of the magnet during the scan. These may be valuable in patients with known or anticipated need for MRI.

AbstractBackgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with legacy cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in situ is likely underutilized. We hypothesized the clinical benefit of MRI would outweigh the risks in legacy CIED patients.MethodsThis is a single‐center retrospective study that evaluated and classified the utility of MRI using a prospectively maintained database. The outcomes were classified as aiding in diagnosis, treatment, or both for the patients attributable to the MRI. We then assessed the incidence of adverse effects (AE) when the MRI was performed.ResultsIn 668, MRIs performed on 479 patients, only 13 (1.9%) MRIs did not aid in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient. Power‐on reset events without clinical sequelae in three scans (0.45%) were the only AE. The probability of an adverse event happening without any benefit from the MRI scan was 1.1 × 10−4. A maximum benefit in diagnosis using MRI was obtained in ruling out space‐occupying lesions (121/185 scans, 65.4%). Scans performed in patients for elucidating answers to queries in treatment were most frequently done for disease staging at long term follow‐up (167/470 scans, 35.5%). Conservative treatment (184/470 scans, 39%) followed by medication changes (153/470 scans, 28.7%) were the most common treatment decisions made.ConclusionsThe utility of MRI in patients with non‐MRI‐conditional CIEDs far outweighs the risk of adverse events when imaging is done in the context of a multidisciplinary program that oversees patient safety.

Abstract Recent guideline statements approve the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) under certain closely monitored conditions. Data from current registries may have lower power to discern changes that may occur in the CIED after the MRI. Objective We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify the adverse events and significance of changes in device function associated with performing MRI in patients with CIEDs Methods A comprehensive literature search of the databases was performed between 1980- 2017. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 7,422 patients underwent 8,865 MRI studies. No death occurred post MRI. Clinical adverse events were extremely rare (mostly less than 1%) and are summarized in Table 1. No significant changes in the pooled mean effect size estimate was noted for the changes in the lead parameters (pacing threshold, sensing and impedance) Binary outcomes post magnetic resonance imaging in patients with non-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices Outcome Sample size Number of patients Rate SE LL of CI UL of CI Death 7401 0 0 0 0 0 Atrial arrhythmia 7173 10 0.001 0.0004 0.0007 0.0024 Ventricular arrhythmia 7371 9 0.0012 0.0004 0.0006 0.0022 Oversensing 4981 17 0.0034 0.0008 0.0020 0.0053 Inhibition of pacing 7371 6 0.0008 0.0003 0.0003 0.0016 Lead Failure/Generator Failure 7475/7475 2/8 0.0002/0.0011 0.0001/0.0004 0.0001/0.0005 0.0009/0.002 Power on Reset 1388 105 0.0131 0.0014 0.0107 0.0161 Did not complete scan 6851 13 0.0019 0.0005 0.0011 0.0031 Chest pain 7080 11 0.0021 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027. Lead threshold rise (>0.5v/>50%-A/V) 5076/6246 12/16 0.0024/0.0026 0.0007/0.0006 0.0013/0.0015 0.0040/0.0041 Change in Battery voltage >0.04V 7132 42 0.0061 0.0009 0.0043 0.0079 Sensing decrease >50%-A/V 5087/5834 17/9 0.0033/0.0015 0.0008/0.0005 0.0020/0.0008 0.0052/0.0028 Impedance changes >50ohms/>50% 5810 22 0.0038 0.0008 0.0024 0.0057 Rise in cardiac enzymes 1703 26 0.0152 0.0030 0.0102 0.0219 A, atrial; V, ventricular; SE, standard Error; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; CI, Confidence intervals. Conclusions MRI in patients with non-conditional CIEDs can be performed with high degree of safety and low rate of clinical events when performed under standardized protocols Acknowledgement/Funding None