Dillon, W.P.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias, one of the most rapidly growing procedures in cardiac electrophysiology, is associated with magnetic resonance imaging–detected brain lesions in more than half of cases. Although a retrograde aortic approach is conventional, modern tools enable entry through a transseptal approach that may avoid embolization of debris from the arterial system. We sought to test the hypothesis that a transseptal puncture would mitigate brain injury compared with a retrograde aortic approach. METHODS: The TRAVERSE trial (Transseptal Versus Retrograde Aortic Ventricular Entry to Reduce Systemic Emboli) was a multicenter randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Patients with left ventricular arrhythmias undergoing catheter ablation procedures were randomly assigned to a transseptal puncture approach compared (1:1) with a retrograde aortic approach. The primary outcome was the presence of an acute brain lesion detected by magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included clinically manifest complications, procedural efficacy, and 6-month neurocognitive assessments. RESULTS: Among the 62 patients randomly assigned to a retrograde aortic approach with postoperative brain magnetic resonance imaging, 28 (45%) exhibited an acute brain lesion compared with 19 of the 69 (28%) of those randomized to a transseptal puncture ( P =0.036). No differences in clinically manifest complications or procedural efficacy were observed. More patients in the retrograde aortic arm were categorized as having a high likelihood of cognitive impairment at 6 months (33% compared with 19% of those in the transseptal arm), but substantial loss to follow-up was present. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing left ventricular catheter ablation procedures, a transseptal approach reduced the risk of acute brain lesions by nearly half compared with a retrograde aortic approach without sacrificing safety or efficacy. Given a likely embolic pathogenesis, the brain magnetic resonance imaging findings may reflect a propensity to other organ damage; these findings may extend to other procedures requiring left ventricular entry. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03946072.

Objective To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety of stapes prostheses. Data Sources Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to November 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Review Methods Studies reporting evidence of stapes prosthesis displacement or interaction in adult or pediatric implant recipients undergoing MRI. Cadaveric, animal, and basic studies with nonhuman data were also included. Results From an initial search of 123 articles, 42 full-text studies were evaluated for eligibility and 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Motion artifact was reported in a few stainless steel prosthesis types in vitro; however, such displacement was not observed in human cadaver temporal bone studies and had no adverse reported outcomes. A small subgroup of patients in the 1980s received a ferromagnetic stainless steel stapes implant that was recalled and has not been used since 1987. Patients with implants performed in the 1980s should be directed to 1.5T scanners from an abundance of caution. Conclusion Modern (post-1987) stapes prostheses do not pose a risk in vivo when exposed to the magnetic fields of MRI scanners.