Jondal, Mary L

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.

Background: Use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain is restricted in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). We proposed to determine whether mortality difference exists for patients with non–MRI-conditional CIEDs undergoing brain MRI compared with controls. Methods and Results: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed to compare all-cause mortality in patients with CIEDs undergoing brain MRI (CIED-MRI) with 3 control groups matched for age, sex, imaging year, and type of CIED: (1) no CIED, brain MRI (no–CIED-MRI); (2) CIED, brain computerized tomography (CT) scan (CIED-CT); and (3) no CIED, brain CT (no–CIED-CT). The primary outcome was a significant difference ( P <0.05) between estimated mortality rates. Secondary outcomes were changes in device function before and after brain MRI. The estimated all-cause mortality at 5 years for the CIED-MRI group [mean age (±SD), 68.2 years (15.3 years); 61.2% men] was not significantly different from patients who underwent CT with or without a device (CIED-CT group: hazard ratio, 0.814; 95% confidence interval, 0.593–1.117; P =0.2; no–CIED-CT group: hazard ratio, 1.149; 95% confidence interval, 0.818–1.613; P =0.4). There was a significant increase in mortality between CIED-MRI and no–CIED-MRI groups (hazard ratio, 1.463; 95% confidence interval, 1.019–2.099; P =0.04). Conclusions: Brain MRI in patients with CIEDs does not carry an increased mortality risk compared with brain CT and can be performed with adherence to appropriate procedural protocols.