Citations

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.

BackgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non‐MRI‐conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been shown to be safe when performed under closely monitored protocols. However, the safety of MRI in patients with devices with a nearly depleted battery has not been reported.MethodsProspective data were collected between January 2008 and May 2015 in patients with non‐MRI‐conditional CIEDs undergoing clinically indicated MRI under institutional protocol. Patients who were pacemaker dependent were excluded. Patients whose devices were at elective replacement indicator (ERI) at the time of MRI or close to ERI (ERI or replacement for battery depletion within 3 months of scan) were identified through database review and analyzed for clinical events.ResultsMRI scans (n = 569) were performed in 442 patients. Of these, we identified 13 scans performed with a nearly depleted battery in nine patients. All scans with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs, n = 9) were uneventful. However, two scans with pacemakers close to ERI resulted in a power‐on‐reset (PoR) event. One scan with a pacemaker close to ERI that was programmed to DOO mode reached ERI during MRI and automatically changed to VVI mode. Additionally, one scan with a pacemaker at ERI did not allow programming. All pacemakers with events were implanted before 2005.ConclusionPatients with pacemakers and ICDs with a nearly depleted battery can safely undergo MRI when patients are not pacemaker dependent. Attention should be paid because old devices can result in PoR or ERI during MRI, which may lead to oversensing and inhibition of pacing.

IntroductionAbandoned cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) leads remain a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, largely due to in vitro data showing endocardial heating secondary to the radiofrequency field. We tested the hypothesis that abandoned CIED leads do not pose an increased risk of clinical harm for patients undergoing MRI.MethodsThis single‐center retrospective study examined the outcomes of patients who had device generators removed before MRI, rendering the device leads abandoned. Information was gathered through chart review. Data collected included lead model, pacing threshold before MRI, anatomic region examined, threshold data after generator reimplantation, and clinical patient outcome.ResultsPatients (n = 19, 11 men and eight women) ranged in age from 19 to 85 at the time of MRI. There was a mean of 1.63 abandoned leads at the time of imaging; none of the leads were MRI conditional. Of the three implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, two of three were dual coil. Most (31/35) of the scans performed were of the central nervous system, including head and spinal imaging. There were no adverse events associated with MRI in any of these patients with abandoned leads within 7 days of the scan. No lead malfunctions or clinically significant change in pacing thresholds were noted with generator reimplantation.ConclusionThe use of MRI in patients with abandoned cardiac device leads appears feasible when performed under careful monitoring, with no adverse events, although the experience is small. MRI did not affect the function of leads that were subsequently reconnected to a cardiac device.

BackgroundRecent studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with pacemakers can be safely performed under careful monitoring, but they excluded patients with recently implanted devices. Patients with recent implants may be at a greater risk for complications during MRI imaging due to lack of lead and wound maturity.MethodsWe implemented a clinical protocol for MRI imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices, and prospectively collected data. For this study, we retrospectively analyzed two groups of patients: those with recently implanted (≤42 days) and nonrecently implanted (>42 days) leads at the time of MRI scanning. All devices were interrogated before and after scanning, and were reprogrammed during the scan as per protocol.ResultsOf the 219 scans (in 171 patients), eight included patients with recently implanted (range: 7–36 days) and 211 with only nonrecently implanted pacemaker leads. During the scan, there were no complications in the early or late group. In one patient imaged 79 days postimplant, frequent premature ventricular complexes were noted during the scan, requiring no action. No patient reported pain during or immediately after the procedure. No clinically significant changes in function were seen at subsequent follow up (average 104 days post‐MRI). Compared to patients with nonrecently implanted leads, there was no difference in any parameter between the two groups.ConclusionsWith a strong clinical indication and with careful monitoring, MRI imaging is feasible in patients with recently implanted pacemakers, although experience is limited.

Background— The objective of the present study was to investigate the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on cardiac autonomic function. Methods and Results— This prospective study included 45 consecutive patients with heart failure who received CRT devices with defibrillator and 20 age-matched, healthy control subjects. At baseline and 3 months and 6 months after CRT, we assessed New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6-minute walk distance, plasma sympathetic biomarker nerve growth factor, echocardiography, heart rate variability and cardiac presynaptic sympathetic function determined by iodine 123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. After CRT, NYHA class improved by 1 class ( P <0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 8% ( P <0.001). Along with improvement in the standard deviation of all normal-to-normal R-R intervals (85.63±31.66 ms versus 114.79±38.99 ms; P =0.004) and the standard deviation of the averaged normal-to-normal R-R intervals (82.62±23.03 ms versus 100.50±34.87 ms; P =0.004), the delayed heart/mediastinum (H/M) ratio increased (1.82 [0.58] versus 1.97 [0.59]; P =0.03), whereas the mean (SD) H/M washout rate was reduced (48% [19%] versus 37% [22%]; P =0.01). Twenty-two of 45 study patients responded to CRT, with a reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume index >15%. Compared with nonresponders, responders had a higher delayed H/M ratio (2.11 versus 1.48; P =0.003) and lower H/M washout rate (37% versus 62%; P =0.003) at baseline. Conclusions— CRT improved sympathetic function. Cardiac sympathetic reserve may be a marker for the reversibility of failing myocardial function.