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

SCMR expert consensus statement for cardiovascular magnetic resonance of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a proven imaging modality for informing diagnosis and prognosis, guiding therapeutic decisions, and risk stratifying surgical intervention. Patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) would be expected to derive particular benefit from CMR given high prevalence of cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia. While several guidelines have been published over the last 16 years, it is important to recognize that both the CIED and CMR technologies, as well as our knowledge in MR safety, have evolved rapidly during that period. Given increasing utilization of CIED over the past decades, there is an unmet need to establish a consensus statement that integrates latest evidence concerning MR safety and CIED and CMR technologies. While experienced centers currently perform CMR in CIED patients, broad availability of CMR in this population is lacking, partially due to limited availability of resources for programming devices and appropriate monitoring, but also related to knowledge gaps regarding the risk-benefit ratio of CMR in this growing population. To address the knowledge gaps, this SCMR Expert Consensus Statement integrates consensus guidelines, primary data, and opinions from experts across disparate fields towards the shared goal of informing evidenced-based decision-making regarding the risk-benefit ratio of CMR for patients with CIEDs.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis in the COVID-19 Era

INTRODUCTION

In the COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize aerosol-generating procedures, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized at our institution as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for diagnosing infective endocarditis (IE).

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the clinical utility of CMR for detecting IE among 14 patients growing typical microorganisms on blood cultures or meeting modified Duke criteria.

RESULTS

7 cases were treated for IE. In 2 cases, CMR results were notable for possible leaflet vegetations and were clinically meaningful in guiding antibiotic therapy, obtaining further imaging, and/or pursuing surgical intervention. In 2 cases, vegetations were missed on CMR but detected on TEE. In 3 cases, CMR was nondiagnostic, but patients were treated empirically. There was no difference in antibiotic duration or outcomes over 1 year.

CONCLUSION

CMR demonstrated mixed results in diagnosing valvular vegetations and guiding clinical decision making. Further prospective controlled trials of CMR vs TEE are warranted.