2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

Multimodality Imaging in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a rare, heritable myocardial disease associated with the development of ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death in early adulthood. Multimodality imaging is a central component in the diagnosis and evaluation of ARVC. Diagnostic criteria established by an international task force in 2010 include noninvasive parameters from echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. These criteria identify right ventricular structural abnormalities, chamber and outflow tract dilation, and reduced right ventricular function as features of ARVC. Echocardiography is a widely available and cost-effective technique, and it is often selected for initial evaluation. Beyond fulfillment of diagnostic criteria, features such as abnormal tricuspid annular plane excursion, increased right ventricular basal diameter, and abnormal strain patterns have been described. 3-dimensional echocardiography may also expand opportunities for structural and functional assessment of ARVC. Cardiac magnetic resonance has the ability to assess morphological and functional cardiac features of ARVC and is also a core modality in evaluation, however, tissue characterization of the right ventricle is limited by spatial resolution and low specificity for detection of pathological changes. Nonetheless, the ability of cardiac magnetic resonance to identify left ventricular involvement, offer high negative predictive value, and provide a reproducible structural evaluation of the right ventricle enhance the ability and scope of the modality. In this review, the prognostic significance of multimodality imaging is outlined, including the supplemental value of multidetector computed tomography and nuclear imaging. Strengths and weaknesses of imaging techniques, as well as future direction of multimodality assessment, are also described.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices with generator and lead(s) brand mismatch

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable imaging modality for the assessment of both cardiac and non‐cardiac structures. With a growing population of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), 50%–75% of these patients will need an MRI. MRI‐conditional CIEDs have demonstrated safety of MRI scanning with such devices, yet non‐conditional devices such as hybrid CIEDs which have generator and lead brand mismatch may pose a safety risk. In this retrospective study, we examined the outcomes of patients with hybrid CIEDs undergoing MRI compared to those patients with non‐hybrid CIEDs. A total of 349 patients were included, of which 24 patients (7%) had hybrid CIEDs. The primary endpoint was the safety of MRI for patients with hybrid CIEDs as compared to those with non‐hybrid devices, measured by the rate of adverse events, including death, lead or generator failure needing immediate replacement, loss of capture, new onset arrhythmia, or power‐on reset. Secondary endpoints consisted of pre‐ and post‐MRI changes of decreased P‐wave or R‐wave sensing by ≥50%, changes in pacing lead impedance by ≥50 ohms, increase in pacing thresholds by ≥ 0.5 V at 0.4 ms, and decreasing battery voltage of ≥ 0.04 V. The primary endpoint of any adverse reaction was present in 1 (4.2%) patient with a hybrid device, and consistent of atrial tachyarrhythmia, and in 10 (3.1%) patients with a non‐hybrid device, and consisted of self‐limited atrial and non‐sustained ventricular arrhythmias; this was not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in the secondary endpoints. This study demonstrates that MRI in patients with hybrid CIEDs does not result in increased patient risk or significant device changes when compared to those patients who underwent MRI with non‐hybrid CIEDs.

Safety verification of carbon-ion radiotherapy for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs)

According to guidelines, carbon-ion beam therapy is considered to carry a high safety risk for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), although the actual impacts remain unclear. In this study, we investigated the safety of carbon-ion beam therapy in patients with CIEDs. Patients with CIEDs who underwent carbon-ion therapy at Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center between June 2010 and December 2019 were identified and investigated for abnormalities in the operation of their CIEDs, such as oversensing and resetting during irradiation, and abnormalities in operation after treatment. In addition, the risk of irradiation from carbon-ion beam therapy was evaluated by model simulations. Twenty patients (22 sites) with CIEDs were identified, 19 with pacemakers and one with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Treatments were completed without any problems, except for one case in which the treatment was discontinued because of worsening of the primary disease. Monte Carlo simulation indicated that the carbon beam irradiation produced neutrons at a constant and high level in the irradiation field. Nevertheless, with the distances between the CIEDs and the irradiation fields in the analyzed cases, the quantity of neutrons at the CIEDs was lower than that within the irradiation. Although carbon-ion beam therapy can be safely administered to patients with CIEDs, it is advisable to perform the therapy with sufficient preparation and backup devices because of the risks involved.

Feasibility of adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging in patients with MR-conditional transvenous permanent pacemakers and defibrillators

BACKGROUND

The use of stress perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging remains limited in patients with implantable devices. The primary goal of the study was to assess the safety, image quality, and the diagnostic value of stress perfusion-CMR in patients with MR-conditional transvenous permanent pacemakers (PPM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a transvenous PPM or ICD referred for adenosine stress-CMR were enrolled in this single-center longitudinal study. The CMR protocol was performed using a 1.5 T system according to current guidelines while all devices were put in MR-mode. Quality of cine, late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE), and stress perfusion sequences were assessed. An ischemia burden of ≥ 1.5 segments was considered significant. We assessed the safety, image quality and the occurrence of interference of the magnetic field with the implantable device. In case of ischemia, we also assessed the correlation with the presence of significant coronary lesions on coronary angiography.

RESULTS

Among 3743 perfusion-CMR examinations, 66 patients had implantable devices (1.7%). Image quality proved diagnostic in 98% of cases. No device damage or malfunction was reported immediately and at 1 year. Fifty patients were continuously paced during CMR. Heart rate and systolic blood pressure remained unchanged during adenosine stress, while diastolic blood pressure decreased (p = 0.007). Six patients (9%) had an ischemia-positive stress CMR and significant coronary stenoses were confirmed by coronary angiography in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Stress perfusion-CMR is safe, allows reliable ischemia detection, and provides good diagnostic value.

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in patients with abandoned or functioning epicardial pacing leads

OBJECTIVES

The European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on cardiac pacing from 2021 allow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) but do not recommend MRI in patients with epicardial pacing leads. The clinical dilemma remains whether performing an MRI in patients with CIED and epicardial leads is safe. We aimed to evaluate the safety of performing an MRI in patients with CIED and abandoned or functioning epicardial pacing leads.

METHODS

We included all adult patients who underwent clinically indicated MRIs with CIED and functioning or abandoned epicardial leads in a single tertiary hospital between November 2011 and October 2019. The data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-six MRIs were performed on 17 patients with functioning or abandoned epicardial pacing leads. Sixty-nine percent of the MRI scans (18/26) were conducted on patients with functioning epicardial pacing leads. A definite adverse event occurred in one MRI scan. This was a transient elevation of the pacing threshold in a patient with a functioning epicardial ventricular pacing lead implanted 29 years previously. An irreversible atrial pacing lead impedance elevation was detected 6 months after the MRI in another patient; the association with the previous MRI remained unclear. No adverse events were detected in MRIs performed on patients with modern (implanted in 2000 or later) functioning epicardial leads.

CONCLUSIONS

MRIs in patients with CIED and modern functioning epicardial pacing leads were performed without detectable adverse events. Further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm MRI safety in patients with epicardial pacing leads.

KEY POINTS

• Currently, MRI in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and functioning or abandoned epicardial pacing leads is not recommended. • MRIs in patients with CIED and modern functioning epicardial leads (implanted in 2000 or later) were performed without detectable adverse events in our patient cohort. • Allowing MRI in patients with epicardial pacing leads may significantly improve the diagnostic work-up, especially in specific patient groups, such as patients with congenital heart disease.

Radiotherapy for patient with cardiac implantable electronic device, consensus from French radiation oncology society

Radiotherapy in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device such as pacemakers or defibrillators, is a clinical situation that is becoming increasingly common. There is a risk of interaction between the magnetic field induced by accelerators and the cardiac implantable electronic device, but also a risk of device dysfunction due to direct and/or indirect irradiation if the cardiac implantable electronic device is in the field of treatment. The risk can be dose-dependent, but it is most often independent of the total dose and occurs randomly in case of neutron production (stochastic effect). The presence of this type of device is therefore described as a contraindication for radiotherapy by the French national agency for the safety of medicines and health products (Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé, ANSM). Nevertheless, since radiotherapy is often possible, it is advisable to respect the recommendations of good practice, in particular the eligibility criteria, the monitoring modalities before, during and after irradiation according to the type of treatment, the dose and the characteristics of the cardiac implantable electronic device. It is sometimes necessary to discuss repositioning the device and/or modifying the treatment plan to minimize the risk of cardiac implantable electronic device dysfunction. We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy on in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device.

Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Risk of Multiple 1.5-T MRI Examinations in Patients With Cardiac Implanted Electronic Devices

While professional societies now support MRI in patients with non-conditional (legacy) cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), concern remains regarding potential cumulative effects of serial examinations. We evaluated 481 patients with CIEDs who underwent 599 1.5-T MRI examinations (44.5% cardiac examinations), including 68 who underwent multiple examinations (maximum, 7 examinations). No major events occurred. Minor adverse event rate was 5.6%. Multiple statistical evaluations showed no increase in adverse event rate with increasing number of previous examinations.

Assessment of Radiation-Induced Malfunction in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Background

Radiation therapy (RT) is a standard cancer treatment modality, and an increasing number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being referred for RT. The goals of this study were as follows: (i) to determine the incidence of CIED malfunction following RT; (ii) to characterize the various types of malfunctions that occur; and (iii) to identify risk factors associated with CIED malfunction following RT.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients with CIEDs who received RT between 2007 and 2018 at 4 Canadian centres (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, and University of Ottawa Heart Institute) was conducted. Patients underwent CIED interrogation after completion of RT, to assess for late damage to the CIEDs. Data on demographics, devices, and RT were compared for the primary outcome of device malfunction.

Results

Of 1041 patients with CIEDs who received RT, 811 patients with complete data were included. Device malfunctions occurred in 32 of 811 patients (4%). The most common device malfunctions were reduced ventricular/atrial sensing (in 13 of 32 [41%]), an increase in lead threshold (in 9 of 32 [22%]), lead noise (in 5 of 32 [16%]), and electrical reset (in 2 of 32 [6%]). Higher beam energy (≥ 10 MV) was associated with malfunction (P < 0.0001). Radiation dose was not significantly different between the malfunction and non-malfunction groups (58.3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectively, P = 0.71).

Conclusions

Although RT-induced CIED malfunctions are rare (occurring in 4% of patients with a CIED who undergo RT), collaborative efforts between radiation oncologists and cardiac rhythm device clinics to optimize CIED monitoring are needed, to detect and manage CIED malfunctions. Malfunctions are more common in patients receiving higher–beam energy (≥10MV)RT.

Current Clinical Practice in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) Undergoing Radiotherapy (RT)

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) undergoing radiotherapy (RT) are more common due to ageing of the population. With newer CIEDs implementing the complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology which allows the miniaturisation of CIED, it is also more susceptible to RT. Effects of RT on CIED ranges from device interference, device operational/memory errors of permanent damage. These malfunctions can cause life threatening clinical effects. Cumulative dose is not the only component of RT that causes CIED malfunction, as neutron use and dose rate effect also affects CIEDs. The management of this patient cohort in clinical practice is inconsistent due to lack of a consistent guideline from manufacturers and physician specialty societies. Our review will focus on the current clinical practice and the recent updated guidelines of managing patients with CIED undergoing RT. We aim to simplify the evidence and provide a simple and easy to use guide based on the recent guidelines.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: Executive summary

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age. This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Evaluation of Patient Positioning to Mitigate RF-induced Heating of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices for Pediatric MRI Exams

Pediatric patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are generally contraindicated for MRI exams. Previous work in the adult population suggests that RF-induced lead-tip heating strongly depends on the patient's position and orientation within the MRI scanner. The objective of this work was to evaluate the local Specific Absorption Rate (local-SAR) in silico for several pediatric patient positions within the MRI scanner as a method to potentially mitigate RF-heating lead-tip heating of CIEDs.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Cardiac device troubleshooting in the intensive care unit: an educational review

Numerous patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device are admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU). When taking care of these patients, it is essential to have basic knowledge of potential device problems and how they could be tackled. This review summarizes common issues with pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization devices and provides a framework for troubleshooting in the ICU. In addition, specific aspects of intensive care that might interfere with cardiac devices are discussed.

Study of feasible and safe condition for total body irradiation using cardiac implantable electronic devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) were believed to have a tolerance dose and that direct irradiation has to be avoided. Thus, no clinical guidelines have mentioned the feasibility of total body irradiation (TBI) with a CIED directly. The purpose of this work was to study a feasible and safe condition for TBI using a CIED. Eighteen CIEDs were directly irradiated by a 6-MV X-ray beam, where a non-neutron producible beam was employed for the removal of any neutron contribution to CIED malfunction. Irradiation up to 10 Gy in accumulated dose was conducted with a 100-cGy/min dose rate, followed by up to 20 Gy at 200 cGy/min. An irradiation test of whether inappropriate ventricular shock therapy was triggered or not was also performed by using a 6-MV beam of 5, 10, 20 and 40 cGy/min to two CIEDs. No malfunction was observed during irradiation up to 20 Gy at 100 and 200 cGy/min without activation of shock therapy. These results were compared with typical TBI, suggesting that a CIED in TBI will not encounter malfunction because the prescribed dose and the dose rate required for TBI are much safer than those used in this experiment. Several inappropriate shock therapies were, however, observed even at 10 cGy/min if activated. The present result suggested that TBI was feasible and safe if a non-neutron producible beam was employed at low dose-rate without activation of shock therapy, where it was not inconsistent with clinical and non-clinical data in the literature. The feasibility of TBI while using a CIED was discussed for the first time.

Current clinical practice in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy: a literature review

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) undergoing radiotherapy (RT) are more common due to the ageing of the population. With newer CIEDs' implementing the complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology which allows the miniaturization of CIED, it is also more susceptible to RT. Effects of RT on CIED ranges from device interference, device operational/memory errors of permanent damage. These malfunctions can cause life-threatening clinical effects. Cumulative dose is not the only component of RT that causes CIED malfunction, as neutron use and dose rate effect also affects CIEDs. The management of this patient cohort in clinical practice is inconsistent due to the lack of a consistent guideline from manufacturers and physician specialty societies. Our review will focus on the current clinical practice and the recently updated guidelines of managing patients with CIED undergoing RT. We aim to simplify the evidence and provide a simple and easy to use guide based on the recent guidelines.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiation Therapy of Patients With Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device on a 1.5 T Magnetic Resonance-Linac

Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy is reported for treating patients with an insertable cardiac monitor and implantable cardiac pacemakers. All treatments were delivered using a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Among the 4 patients, 2 were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy at a dose of 40 Gy in 5 fractions. A clinical safety protocol was developed to address the decision-making and patient selection, as well as the clarified responsibilities of different parties for management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Dose estimation based on out-of-field dose data are necessary for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices located outside the treatment fields.

Implementation of Magnetic Resonance Safety Program for Radiation Oncology

During the last decade, radiation oncology departments have integrated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment, procedures, and expertise into their practices. MRI safety is an important consideration because a large percentage of patients receiving radiation therapy have histories of multiple surgeries and implanted devices. However, MRI safety guidelines and workflows were traditionally designed for radiology departments. This report presents an MR safety program designed for a radiation oncology department to address its specific needs.

Deep Learning-Based Algorithm for the Detection and Characterization of MRI Safety of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices on Chest Radiographs

Objective

With the recent development of various MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), the accurate identification and characterization of CIEDs have become critical when performing MRI in patients with CIEDs. We aimed to develop and evaluate a deep learning-based algorithm (DLA) that performs the detection and characterization of parameters, including MRI safety, of CIEDs on chest radiograph (CR) in a single step and compare its performance with other related algorithms that were recently developed.

Materials and Methods

We developed a DLA (X-ray CIED identification [XCID]) using 9912 CRs of 958 patients with 968 CIEDs comprising 26 model groups from 4 manufacturers obtained between 2014 and 2019 from one hospital. The performance of XCID was tested with an external dataset consisting of 2122 CRs obtained from a different hospital and compared with the performance of two other related algorithms recently reported, including PacemakerID (PID) and Pacemaker identification with neural networks (PPMnn).

Results

The overall accuracies of XCID for the manufacturer classification, model group identification, and MRI safety characterization using the internal test dataset were 99.7% (992/995), 97.2% (967/995), and 98.9% (984/995), respectively. These were 95.8% (2033/2122), 85.4% (1813/2122), and 92.2% (1956/2122), respectively, with the external test dataset. In the comparative study, the accuracy for the manufacturer classification was 95.0% (152/160) for XCID and 91.3% for PPMnn (146/160), which was significantly higher than that for PID (80.0%,128/160; p < 0.001 for both). XCID demonstrated a higher accuracy (88.1%; 141/160) than PPMnn (80.0%; 128/160) in identifying model groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The remarkable and consistent performance of XCID suggests its applicability for detection, manufacturer and model identification, as well as MRI safety characterization of CIED on CRs. Further studies are warranted to guarantee the safe use of XCID in clinical practice.

Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

AIMS

Many cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are not approved by regulators for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Even following generator exchange to an approved magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional model, many systems remain classified 'non-MR conditional' due to the leads. This classification makes patient access to MRI challenging, but there is no evidence of increased clinical risk. We compared the effect of MRI on non-MR conditional and MR-conditional pacemaker and defibrillator leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients undergoing clinical 1.5T MRI with pacemakers and defibrillators in three centres over 5 years were included. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols were similar for MR-conditional and non-MR conditional systems. Devices were interrogated pre- and immediately post-scan, and at follow-up, and adverse clinical events recorded. Lead parameter changes peri-scan were stratified by MR-conditional labelling. A total of 1148 MRI examinations were performed in 970 patients (54% non-MR conditional systems, 39% defibrillators, 15% pacing-dependent) with 2268 leads. There were no lead-related adverse clinical events, and no clinically significant immediate or late lead parameter changes following MRI in either MR-conditional or non-MR conditional leads. Small reductions in atrial and right ventricular sensed amplitudes and impedances were similar between groups, with no difference in the proportion of leads with parameter changes greater than pre-defined thresholds (7.1%, 95% confidence interval: 6.1-8.3).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no increased risk of MRI in patients with non-MR conditional pacemaker or defibrillator leads when following recommended protocols. Standardizing MR conditions for all leads would significantly improve access to MRI by enabling patients to be scanned in non-specialist centres, with no discernible incremental risk.

A Review and Analysis of Managing Commonly Seen Implanted Devices for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy

Purpose

This review article aims to consolidate information regarding existing and emerging implanted devices used in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to categorize levels of attention needed for each device, including which devices require monitoring throughout treatment.

Methods and Materials

Based on the collective information from scholar searches, manufacturers' technical reports, and institutional experiences in the past years, commonly present devices in patients with cancer are compiled. This work summarizes cardiac pacemaker, implanted cardiac defibrillator, hepatic pump, intrathecal pain pump, neurostimulator, shunt, loop recorder, and mediport. Three different classifications of implanted devices can be made based on the potential effect of radiation: life-dependent, nonlife-dependent but with adverse effects if overdosed, and devices without electronic circuits. Implanted devices that contain electronic circuits that would be life-dependent or have adverse effects if overdosed, include cardiac pacemakers, implanted cardiac defibrillators, programmable hepatic pumps, pain pumps, neurostimulators, and loop recorders.

Results

Dose exposure to these devices need to be calculated or measured in vivo, especially for cardiac implanted devices, and they should be minimized to assure continued healthy functioning. Treatment planning techniques should be chosen to reduce entry, exit and internal scatter dose. Lower energy photon beams should be used to decrease potential neutron contamination. Implanted devices without electronic circuits are less of a concern. If a patient is life-dependent on the implanted device, it is not recommended to treat the patient with proton therapy.

Conclusions

This study reviewed the management of patients with commonly seen implanted devices and summarized a workflow for identifying and planning when a patient has implanted devices. Classifications of implanted devices could help clinicians make proper decisions in regard to patients with specific implanted devices. Lastly, the management of such devices in the era of the pandemic is also discussed in this review article.

Is diversity harmful?-Mixed-brand cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

Background

Many patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, a relevant proportion have a CIED system that has not been classified as MRI-conditional because of generators and leads from different brands (mixed-brand group). The available data concerning the outcome of these mixed patients undergoing MRI is limited.

Methods

A retrospective single center study, including all patients with CIEDs undergoing MRI between January 2013 until May 2020, was performed. Primary endpoints were defined as death or any adverse event necessitating hospitalization or CIED revision. Secondary endpoints were the occurrence of any sign for beginning device or lead failure or patient discomfort during MRI.

Results

A total of 227 MRI examinations, including 10 thoracic MRIs, were carried out in 158 patients, with 1–9 MRIs per patient. Of the patients 38 underwent 54 procedures in the mixed-brand group and 89 patients underwent 134 MRIs in the MRI-conditional group. Of the patients 31 were excluded since the MRI conditionality could not be determined. No primary endpoints occurred within the mixed-brand group but in 2.2% of the MRI-conditional group (p = 1.000), with 2 patients developing new atrial fibrillation during MRI, of whom one additionally had a transient CIED dysfunction. No secondary endpoints were met in the mixed-brand group compared to 3.4% in the MRI-conditional group (p = 0.554). No complications occurred in the excluded patients.

Conclusion

The complication rate of CIED patients undergoing MRI was low. Patients with a mixed CIED system showed no signs of increased risk of adverse events compared to patients with MRI-conditional CIED systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00508-021-01924-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Programming Strategies

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) cine and strain imaging before and after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for assessment of response and the optimal resynchronization pacing strategy.

BACKGROUND

CMR with cardiac implantable electronic devices can safely provide high-quality right ventricular/left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (RVEF/LVEF) assessments and strain.

METHODS

CMR with cine imaging, displacement encoding with stimulated echoes for the circumferential uniformity ratio estimate with singular value decomposition (CURE-SVD) dyssynchrony parameter, and scar assessment was performed before and after CRT. Whereas the pre-CRT scan constituted a single "imaging set" with complete volumetric, strain, and scar imaging, multiple imaging sets with complete strain and volumetric data were obtained during the post-CRT scan for biventricular pacing (BIVP), LV pacing (LVP), and asynchronous atrial pacing modes by reprogramming the device outside the scanner between imaging sets.

RESULTS

100 CMRs with a total of 162 imaging sets were performed in 50 patients (median age 70 years [IQR: 50 years-86 years]; 48% female). Reduction in LV end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.002) independent of CRT pacing were more prominent than corresponding reductions in right ventricular end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.16). A clear dependence of the optimal CRT pacing mode (BIVP vs LVP) on the PR interval (P = 0.0006) was demonstrated. The LVEF and RVEF improved more with BIVP than LVP with PR intervals ≥240 milliseconds (P = 0.025 and P = 0.002, respectively); the optimal mode (BIVP vs LVP) was variable with PR intervals <240 milliseconds. A lower pre-CRT displacement encoding with stimulated echoes CURE-SVD was associated with greater improvements in the post-CRT CURE-SVD (r = -0.69; P < 0.001), LV end-systolic volume (r = -0.58; P < 0.001), and LVEF (r = -0.52; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CMR evaluation with assessment of multiple pacing modes during a single scan after CRT is feasible and provides useful information for patient care with respect to response and the optimal pacing strategy.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Saturation recovery-prepared magnetic resonance angiography for assessment of left atrial and esophageal anatomy

OBJECTIVES

Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) has been established as an important imaging method in cardiac ablation procedures. In pulmonary vein (PV) isolation procedures, MRA has the potential to minimize the risk of severe complications, such as atrio-esophageal fistula, by providing detailed information on esophageal position relatively to cardiac structures. However, traditional non-gated, first-pass (FP) MRA approaches have several limitations, such as long breath-holds, non-uniform signal intensity throughout the left atrium (LA), and poor esophageal visualization. The aim of this observational study was to validate a respiratory-navigated, ECG-gated (EC), saturation recovery-prepared MRA technique for simultaneous imaging of LA, LA appendage, PVs, esophagus, and adjacent anatomical structures.

METHODS

Before PVI, 106 consecutive patients with a history of AF underwent either conventional FP-MRA (n = 53 patients) or our new EC-MRA (n = 53 patients). Five quality scores (QS) of LA and esophagus visibility were assessed by two experienced readers. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare QS between FP-MRA and EC-MRA groups, and linear regression was applied to assess clinical contributors to image quality.

RESULTS

EC-MRA demonstrated significantly better image quality than FP-MRA in every quality category. Esophageal visibility using the new MRA technique was markedly better than with the conventional FP-MRA technique (median 3.5 [IQR 1] vs median 1.0, p < 0.001). In contrast to FP-MRA, overall image quality of EC-MRA was not influenced by heart rate.

CONCLUSION

Our ECG-gated, respiratory-navigated, saturation recovery-prepared MRA technique provides significantly better image quality and esophageal visibility than the established non-gated, breath-holding FP-MRA. Image quality of EC-MRA technique has the additional advantage of being unaffected by heart rate.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Detailed information of cardiac anatomy has the potential to minimize the risk of severe complications and improve success rates in invasive electrophysiological studies. Our novel ECG-gated, respiratory-navigated, saturation recovery-prepared MRA technique provides significantly better image quality of LA and esophageal structures than the traditional first-pass algorithm. This new MRA technique is robust to arrhythmia (tachycardic, irregular heart rates) frequently observed in AF patients.

What Is the Clinical Impact of Stress CMR After the ISCHEMIA Trial?

After progressively receding for decades, cardiovascular mortality due to coronary artery disease has recently increased, and the associated healthcare costs are projected to double by 2030. While the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for chronic coronary syndromes recommend non-invasive cardiac imaging for patients with suspected coronary artery disease, the impact of non-invasive imaging strategies to guide initial coronary revascularization and improve long-term outcomes is still under debate. Recently, the ISCHEMIA trial has highlighted the fundamental role of optimized medical therapy and the lack of overall benefit of early invasive strategies at a median follow-up of 3.2 years. However, sub-group analyses excluding procedural infarctions with longer follow-ups of up to 5 years have suggested that patients undergoing revascularization had better outcomes than those receiving medical therapy alone. A recent sub-study of ISCHEMIA in patients with heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <45%) indicated that revascularization improved clinical outcomes compared to medical therapy alone. Furthermore, other large observational studies have suggested a favorable prognostic impact of coronary revascularization in patients with severe inducible ischemia assessed by stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Indeed, some data suggest that stress CMR-guided revascularization assessing the extent of the ischemia could be useful in identifying patients who would most benefit from invasive procedures such as myocardial revascularization. Interestingly, the MR-INFORM trial has recently shown that a first-line stress CMR-based non-invasive assessment was non-inferior in terms of outcomes, with a lower incidence of coronary revascularization compared to an initial invasive approach guided by fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. In the present review, we will discuss the current state-of-the-art data on the prognostic value of stress CMR assessment of myocardial ischemia in light of the ISCHEMIA trial results, highlighting meaningful sub-analyses, and still unanswered opportunities of this pivotal study. We will also review the available evidence for the potential clinical application of quantifying the extent of ischemia to stratify cardiovascular risk and to best guide invasive and non-invasive treatment strategies.

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Malfunctioning During Pencil Beam Proton Scanning in an In Vitro Setting

PURPOSE

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are sensitive to scattered secondary neutrons from proton beam irradiation. This experimental in vitro study investigated risk of CIED errors during pencil beam proton therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used 62 explanted CIEDs from 4 manufacturers; 49 CIEDs were subjected to a simulated clinical protocol with daily 2 Gy relative biological effectiveness fractions prescribed to the phantom. Devices were located at 3 different lateral distances from the spread-out Bragg peak to investigate the risk of permanent or temporary device errors. Additionally, 13 devices with leads connected were monitored live during consecutive irradiations to investigate the risk of noise, over- or undersense, pace inhibition, and inappropriate shock therapy.

RESULTS

We detected 61 reset errors in 1728 fractions, and all except 1 CIED were reprogrammed to normal function. All, except 1 reset, occurred in devices from the same manufacturer. These were successfully reprogrammed to normal function. The 1 remaining CIED was locked in permanent safety mode. Secondary neutron dose, as estimated by Monte Carlo simulations, was found to significantly increase the odds of CIED resets by 55% per mSv. Clinically significant battery depletion was observed in 5 devices. We observed no noise, over- or undersense, pace inhibition, or inappropriate shock therapy during 362 fractions of live monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Reprogrammable CIED reset was the most commonly observed malfunction during proton therapy, and reset risk depended on secondary neutron exposure. The benefits of proton therapy are expected to outweigh the risk of CIED malfunctioning for most patients.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonischemic Myocardial Disease with Clinical Manifestations (Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Already Excluded)

Nonischemic cardiomyopathies encompass a broad spectrum of myocardial disorders with mechanical or electrical dysfunction without evidence of ischemia. There are five broad variants of nonischemic cardiomyopathies; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (Variant 1), restrictive or infiltrative cardiomyopathy (Variant 2), dilated or unclassified cardiomyopathy (Variant 3), arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (Variant 4), and inflammatory cardiomyopathy (Variant 5). For variants 1, 3, and 4, resting transthoracic echocardiography, MRI heart function and morphology without and with contrast, and MRI heart function and morphology without contrast are the usually appropriate imaging modalities. For variants 2 and 5, resting transthoracic echocardiography and MRI heart function and morphology without and with contrast are the usually appropriate imaging modalities. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices With Abandoned Leads

Importance

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the modality of choice for many conditions. Conditional devices and novel protocols for imaging patients with legacy cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have increased access to MRI in patients with devices. However, the presence of abandoned leads remains an absolute contraindication.

Objective

To assess if the performance of an MRI in the presence of an abandoned CIED lead is safe and whether there are deleterious effects on concomitant active CIED leads.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included consecutive CIED recipients undergoing 1.5-T MRI with at least 1 abandoned lead between January 2013 and June 2020. MRI scans were performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. No patients were excluded.

Exposures

CIEDs were reprogrammed based on patient-specific pacing needs. Electrocardiography telemetry and pulse oximetry were monitored continuously, and live contact with the patient throughout the scan via visual and voice contact was performed if possible. After completion of the MRI, CIED evaluation was repeated and programming returned to baseline or to a clinically appropriate setting.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Variation in pre- and post-MRI capture threshold of 50% or more, ventricular sensing 40% or more, and lead impedance 30% or more, as well as clinical sequelae such as pain and sustained tachyarrhythmia were considered significant. Long-term follow-up lead-related data were analyzed if available.

Results

A total of 139 consecutive patients (110 men [79%]) with a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (13.4) years underwent 200 MRIs of various anatomic regions including the thorax. Repeat examinations were common with a maximum of 16 examinations for 1 patient. There was a total of 243 abandoned leads with a mean (SD) of 1.22 (0.45) per patient. The mean (SD) number of active leads was 2.04 (0.78) and 64 patients (46%) were pacemaker dependent. A transmit-receive radiofrequency coil was used in 41 patients (20.5%), all undergoing MRI of the brain. There were no abnormal vital signs or sustained tachyarrhythmias. No changes in battery voltage, power-on reset events, or changes of pacing rate were noted. CIED parameter changes including decreased right atrial sensing in 4 patients and decreased left ventricular R-wave amplitude in 1 patient were transiently noted. One patient with an abandoned subcutaneous array experienced sternal heating that subsided on premature cessation of the study.

Conclusions and Relevance

The risk of MRI in patients with abandoned CIED leads was low in this large observational study, including patients who underwent examination of the thorax. The growing aggregate of data questions the absolute contraindication for MRI in patients with abandoned CIED leads.

Access to MRI for patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators

OBJECTIVE

To determine provision of MRI for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs; pacemakers and defibrillators) in England, to understand regional variation and assess the impact of guideline changes.

METHODS

Retrospective data related to MRI scans performed in patients with CIED over the preceding 12 months was collected using a structured survey tool distributed to every National Health Service Trust MRI unit in England. Data were compared with similar data from 2014/2015 and with demand (estimated from local CIED implantation rates and regional population data by sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs)).

RESULTS

Responses were received from 212 of 223 (95%) hospitals in England. 112 (53%) MRI units' scan patients with MR-conditional CIEDs (10% also scan non-MR conditional devices), compared with 46% of sites in 2014/2015. Total annual scan volume increased over fourfold between 2014 and 2019 (1090 to 4896 scans). There was widespread geographical variation, with five STPs (total population >3·5 million representing approximately 25 000 patients with CIED) with no local provision. There was no correlation between local demand (CIED implantation rates) and MRI provision (scan volume). Complication rates were extremely low with three events nationally in 12 months (0·06% CIED-MRI scans).

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of MRI for patients with CIEDs in England increased over fourfold in 4 years, but an estimated 10-fold care gap remains. Almost half of hospitals and 1 in 10 STPs have no service, with no relationship between local supply and demand. Availability of MRI for patients with non-MR conditional devices, although demonstrably safe, remains limited.

Magnetic resonance imaging in children with implants

As access to MRI in pediatrics increases, the radiologist needs to become acquainted with the basic principles of MRI safety. As part of the image acquisition, the static magnetic field, gradient system, and the radiofrequency transmit-receive coil interact with medical and non-medical implants and can result in serious injury. The main stage of risk triage is based on the determination of whether the implant is MRI-safe, conditional, unsafe or unknown. Guiding principles include the strict adherence to manufacturer specifications for MRI-conditional implants and the assumption that an unknown implant is MR-unsafe. In this article we review considerations for common medical implants encountered in pediatrics including ventriculoperitoneal shunts, orthopedic hardware, orthodontic hardware, pacemakers, vascular stents, vagal nerve stimulators and cochlear implants. Finally, we review a set of high-yield considerations, including the non-communicative patient (sedated or non-verbal), susceptibility artifacts from unclear source, and the approach to an unknown implant.

Multi-Modality Imaging for the Identification of Arrhythmogenic Substrates Prior to Electrophysiology Studies

Noninvasive cardiac imaging is crucial for the characterization of patients who are candidates for cardiac ablations, for both procedure planning and long-term management. Multimodality cardiac imaging can provide not only anatomical parameters but even more importantly functional information that may allow a better risk stratification of cardiac patients. Moreover, fusion of anatomical and functional data derived from noninvasive cardiac imaging with the results of endocavitary mapping may possibly allow a better identification of the ablation substrate and also avoid peri-procedural complications. As a result, imaging-guided electrophysiological procedures are associated with an improved outcome than traditional ablation procedures, with a consistently lower recurrence rate.

Radiotherapy in patient with an automated implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Introduction:

An ever-growing number of patients with implantable cardiac rhythm devices are treated with radiation therapy for cancer and are therefore at risk of device failure. Several medical societies developed recommendations for the management of such patients.

We report the case of a 76-year-old patient with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator, treated with external radiotherapy for breast cancer, to test in practice the recommendations on the management of similar cases.

Impact of Wideband Late Gadolinium Enhancement Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Device-Related Artifacts in Different Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Types

BACKGROUND

Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) is limited by device-related artifacts (DRA). The use of wideband (WB) LGE protocols improves LGE images, but their efficacy with different ICD types is not well known.

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of WB LGE imaging on DRA in different non-MR conditional ICD subtypes.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

A total of 113 patients undergoing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with three ICD subtypes: transvenous (TV-ICD, N = 48), cardiac-resynchronization therapy device (CRT-D, N = 48), and subcutaneous (S-ICD, N = 17).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

5 T scanner, standard LGE, and WB LGE imaging with a phase-sensitive inversion recovery segmented gradient echo sequence.

ASSESSMENT

DRA burden was defined as the number of artifact-positive short-axis LGE slices as percentage of the total number of short-axis slices covering the left ventricle from based to apex, and was determined for WB and standard LGE studies for each patient. Additionally, artifact area on each slice was quantified.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Shapiro-Wilks, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, Dunn tests with Bonferroni correction, and Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

In patients with TV-ICD, DRA burden was significantly reduced and nearly eliminated with WB LGE compared to standard LGE imaging (median [interquartile range]: 0 [0-7]% vs. 18 [0-50]%, P < 0.05), but WB imaging had less of an impact on DRA in the CRT-D (8 [0-23]% vs. 16 [0-45]%, p = 0.12) and S-ICD (60 [15-71]% vs. 67 [50-92]%, P = 0.09) patients. Residual DRA was significantly greater (P < 0.05) for S-ICD compared to other device types with WB LGE imaging, despite the generators of all three ICD types having similar proximity to the heart. The area of S-ICD associated DRA was smaller with WB LGE (P < 0.001) than with standard LGE imaging and the artifacts had different characteristics (dark signal void instead of a bright hyperenhancement artifact).

DATA CONCLUSION

Although WB LGE imaging reduced the burden of DRA caused by S-ICD, the residual artifact was greater than that observed with TV-ICD and CRT-D devices. Further developments are needed to better resolve S-ICD artifacts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: STAGE: 5.

Utilization and programming of an automatic MRI recognition feature for cardiac rhythm management devices

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED)—ie, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices—have recently been designed to allow for patients to safely undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when specific programming is implemented. MRI AutoDetect is a feature that automatically switches CIED’s programming into and out of an MR safe mode when exposed to an MRI environment.

Objective

The purpose was to analyze de-identified daily remote transmission data to characterize the utilization of the MRI AutoDetect feature.

Methods

Home Monitoring transmission data collected from MRI AutoDetect–capable devices were retrospectively analyzed to determine the workflow and usage in patients experiencing an MRI using the MRI AutoDetect feature.

Results

Among 48,756 capable systems, 2197 devices underwent an MRI using the MRI AutoDetect feature. In these 2197 devices, the MRI AutoDetect feature was used a total of 2806 times with an average MRI exposure of 40.83 minutes. The majority (88.9%) of MRI exposures occurred on the same day as the MRI AutoDetect programming. A same day post-MRI exposure follow-up device interrogation was performed 8.6% of the time. A device-related complaint occurred within 30 days of the MRI exposure in 0.25% of MRI exposures using MRI AutoDetect but with no adverse clinical outcome.

Conclusion

As a result of automation in device programming, the MRI AutoDetect feature eliminated post-MRI device reprogramming in 91.4% of MRI exposures and, while less frequent, allowed for pre-MRI interrogations prior to the day of the MRI exposure—reducing resource utilization and creating workflow flexibility.

Quantification of artifacts during cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with leadless Micra pacemakers

INTRODUCTION

When cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) is performed after previous leadless transcatheter pacemaker implantation, an image distortion has to be expected in the heart region and evaluation of myocardial tissue can be affected. In this clinical prospective study, we aim to assess the extent and impact of this artifact on individual ventricular segments and compare it to conventional pacing devices.

METHODS

Total of 20 patients with leadless pacemaker placed in the right ventricle underwent cardiac MR imaging in a 1.5 Tesla scanner. A multiplanar segmentation was used to demarcate the left and right ventricular myocardium as well as the pacemaker-caused image artifact in systolic and diastolic time frames. Artifact size and its relative influence on myocardial segments were quantitatively assessed and expressed in AHA-17 model.

RESULTS

Implanted leadless pacemaker caused an image artifact with a volume of 48 ± 5 ml. Most distorted were the apical septal (53 ± 23%), apical inferior (30 ± 18%), and midventricular inferoseptal (30 ± 20%) segments. The artifact intersection with basal and lateral segments was none or negligible (up to 2%). The portion of left ventricular (LV) myocardium affected by the artifact was significantly higher in systole (8 ± 4%) compared to diastole (10 ± 3%; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of leadless pacemaker represents no obstacle for cardiac MR imaging but causes an image artifact located mostly in septal, inferoseptal, and anteroseptal segments of apical and midventricular LV myocardium. With the exception of the apex, diastolic timing reduces the image distortion of all segments and improves global ventricular assessment.

Feasibility of MRI in patients with non-Pacemaker/Defibrillator metallic devices and abandoned leads

Objective

To evaluate feasibility of MRI in patients with non-pacemaker (PM)/ Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) metallic devices and abandoned leads.

Background

Relative safety of MRI performed using specified protocol has been established in MR non-conditional PM/ICDs. With limited safety data, many non-PM/ICD metallic devices and abandoned leads continue to be a contraindication for MRI.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with extra-cardiac devices, non-programmable cardiac devices, and abandoned leads, who underwent MRI (GE 1.5 Tesla, WI) at a single tertiary care center over a span of 13 years. Scan protocol was designed to maintain specific absorption rate (SAR) < 4.0 W/kg and scan time < 60 minutes.

Results

The cohort comprised 127 MRI exams representing 94 patients, with 13 patients having two or more scans. The devices consisted of: 23 vagal nerve stimulators (VNS), 22 implantable loop recorders, 16 spinal stimulators, 5 peripheral nerve stimulators, 3 bladder stimulators, 2 deep brain stimulators, 1 gastric stimulator, 1 bone stimulator, 1 WATCHMAN device, 22 abandoned PM/lCD leads and 1 VNS lead. There was no immediate (peri-MRI exam) morbidity or mortality. Patients did not report any discomfort, palpitations, heating, or sensation of device migration during the exam. Local follow-up data was available in 65% (100% for thoracic imaging) with a mean of 190±475 days (median 13 days). No device malfunction reported during follow-up.

Conclusions

With appropriate precautions, MRI is feasible in patients with extracardiac devices, nonprogrammable cardiac devices, and abandoned leads.

Important tips reflected in our daily practice from the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council report on premature ventricular contractions

Premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) is one of the most common situations in the current cardiology practice. Although PVCs are generally benign in people without any structural heart disease, they may be associated with left ventricular dysfunction, cardiomyopathy, and, rarely, sudden death. Recently, there has been a considerable research in the pathophysiology of PVC, several clinical presentations in different situations, new proposals of successful diagnostic methods, and treatment modalities. Finally, the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council has published a special report that deals with all the aspects of PVC. We reviewed the important points from this report that can be reflected in our daily practice.

Impact of different radiation techniques and doses on cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Purpose of this investigation was to get deeper insight into the impact of different radiation techniques and doses on cardiac implantable electric devices (CIEDs). We aimed to mimic a worst-case scenario with very high doses and external radiation being applied directly on the devices.

METHODS

Radiation was applied on 21 CIEDs as photon or electron therapy with maximum dose of 150Gy in fractions of 2 -20Gy. CIEDS were put directly into the beam. Brachytherapy was applied with doses of 6Gy to a maximum of 42Gy. Check-ups took place after every fraction and one week after radiation. We calculated the estimated potential risk for the health and survival of patients as well as the risk for CIEDs' loss of function.

RESULTS

28 life- or health-threatening errors occurred during photon therapy, 3/7 devices showed complete loss of function. During electron therapy, 31 potentially patient-threatening errors and 2 losses of function were detected. During brachytherapy, none of the devices showed loss of function but 8 patient-threatening errors occurred. Inadequate shock releases were mostly seen after photon and brachytherapy, random noises occurred more often during electron therapy. The earliest potentially serious error occurred during after 2Gy photon radiation and 6Gy brachytherapy. Losses of function occurred earliest at 80Gy.

CONCLUSION

The results underline the warning for precaution concerning CIED patients derived from recommendations in the literature. Our study offers new information especially about the impact of electron radiation and brachytherapy on CIEDs. Risk for the devices to for loss of telemetry or battery capacity might be negligible with normafractionated therapy.