Utilization and likelihood of radiologic diagnostic imaging in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators

Balanced-force shim system for correcting magnetic-field inhomogeneities in the heart due to implanted cardioverter defibrillators

Background

In the US, 1.4 million people have implanted ICDs for reducing the risk of sudden death due to ventricular arrhythmias. Cardiac MRI (cMR) is of particular interest in the ICD patient population as cMR is the optimal imaging modality for distinguishing cardiac conditions that predispose to sudden death, and it is the best method to plan and guide therapy. However, all ICDs contain a ferromagnetic transformer which imposes a large inhomogeneous magnetic field in sections of the heart, creating large image voids that can mask important pathology. A shim system was devised to resolve these ICD issues. A shim coil system (CSS) that corrects ICD artifacts over a user-selected Region-of-Interest (ROI), was constructed and validated.

Methods

A shim coil was constructed that can project a large magnetic field for distances of ~15 cm. The shim-coil can be positioned safely anywhere within the scanner bore. The CSS includes a cantilevered beam to hold the shim coil. Remotely controlled MR-conditional motors allow 2 mm-accuracy three-dimensional shim-coil position. The shim coil is located above the subjects and the imaging surface-coils. Interaction of the shim coil with the scanner's gradients was eliminated with an amplifier that is in a constant current mode. Coupling with the scanners' radio-frequency (rf) coils, was reduced with shielding, low-pass filters, and cable shield traps. Software, which utilizes magnetic field (B0) mapping of the ICD inhomogeneity, computes the optimal location for the shim coil and its corrective current. ECG gated single- and multiple-cardiac-phase 2D GRE and SSFP sequences, as well as 3D ECG-gated respiratory-navigated IR-GRE (LGE) sequences were tested in phantoms and N = 3 swine with overlaid ICDs.

Results

With all cMR sequences, the system reduced artifacts from >100 ppm to <25 ppm inhomogeneity, which permitted imaging of the entire left ventricle in swine with ICD-related voids. Continuously acquired Gradient recalled echo or Steady State Free Precession images were used to interactively adjust the shim current and coil location.

Conclusion

The shim system reduced large field inhomogeneities due to implanted ICDs and corrected most ICD-related image distortions. Externally-controlled motorized translation of the shim coil simplified its utilization, supporting an efficient cardiac MRI workflow.

Joint British Society consensus recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly a fundamental component of the diagnostic pathway across a range of conditions. Historically, the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) has been a contraindication for MRI, however, development of MR Conditional devices that can be scanned under strict protocols has facilitated the provision of MRI for patients. Additionally, there is growing safety data to support MR scanning in patients with CIEDs that do not have MR safety labelling or with MR Conditional CIEDs where certain conditions are not met, where the clinical justification is robust. This means that almost all patients with cardiac devices should now have the same access to MRI scanning in the National Health Service as the general population. Provision of MRI to patients with CIED, however, remains limited in the UK, with only half of units accepting scan requests even for patients with MR Conditional CIEDs. Service delivery requires specialist equipment and robust protocols to ensure patient safety and facilitate workflows, meanwhile demanding collaboration between healthcare professionals across many disciplines. This document provides consensus recommendations from across the relevant stakeholder professional bodies and patient groups to encourage provision of safe MRI for patients with CIEDs.

Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Implant Compatibility With Ultrahigh Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (4.7 Tesla and 7 Tesla)

The use of 7 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is expanding across medical specialties, particularly, clinical neurosciences and orthopedics. Investigational 7 T MRI has also been performed in cardiology. A limiting factor for expansion of the role of 7 T, irrespective of the body part being imaged, is the sparse testing of biomedical implant compatibility at field strengths >3 T. Implant compatibility can be tested following the American Society for Testing and Materials International guidelines. To assess the current state of cardiovascular implant safety at field strengths >3 T, a systematic search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and citation matching. Studies written in English that included at least 1 cardiovascular-related implant and at least 1 safety outcome (deflection angle, torque, or temperature change) were included. Data were extracted for the implant studied, implant composition, deflection angle, torque, and temperature change, and the American Society for Testing and Materials International standards were followed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines for scoping reviews were followed. A total of 9 studies were included. A total of 34 cardiovascular-related implants tested ex vivo at 7 T and 91 implants tested ex vivo at 4.7 T were included. The implants included vascular grafts and conduits, vascular access ports, peripheral and coronary stents, caval filters, and artificial valves. A total of 2 grafts, 1 vascular access port, 2 vena cava filters, and 5 stents were identified as incompatible with the 7 T MRI. All incompatible stents were 40 mm in length. Based on the safety outcomes reported, we identify several implants that may be compatible with >3 T MRI. This scoping review seeks to concisely summarize all the cardiovascular-related implants tested for ultrahigh field MRI compatibility to date.

Implantable Defibrillator System Shock Function, Mortality, and Cause of Death After Magnetic Resonance Imaging

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does not have clinically important effects on the device parameters of non-MRI-conditional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, data on non-MRI-conditional ICD detection and treatment of arrhythmias after MRI are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine if non-MRI-conditional ICDs have preserved shock function of arrhythmias after MRI.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01130896).

SETTING

1 center in the United States.

PATIENTS

629 patients with non-MRI-conditional ICDs enrolled consecutively between February 2003 and January 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

813 total MRI examinations at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 Tesla using a prespecified safety protocol.

MEASUREMENTS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interrogations were collected after MRI. Clinical outcomes included arrhythmia detection and treatment, generator or lead exchanges, adverse events, and death.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 2.2 years from MRI to latest available ICD interrogation before generator or lead exchange in 536 patients, 4177 arrhythmia episodes were detected, and 97 patients received ICD shocks. Sixty-one patients (10% of total) had 130 spontaneous ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation events terminated by ICD shocks. A total of 210 patients (33% of total) are known to have died (median, 1.7 years from MRI to death); 3 had cardiac arrhythmia deaths where shocks were indicated without direct evidence of device dysfunction.

LIMITATIONS

Data were acquired at a single center and may not be generalizable to other clinical settings and MRI facilities. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interrogations were not available for a subset of patients; adjudication of cause of death relied solely on death certificate data in a subset.

CONCLUSION

Non-MRI-conditional ICDs appropriately treated detected tachyarrhythmias after MRI. No serious adverse effects on device function were reported after MRI.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Johns Hopkins University and National Institutes of Health.

An algorithm for pacing and cardioverting electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: The PACED-MRI protocol

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have traditionally been a contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, there is an increasing amount of literature to suggest that MRI can be safely performed in select patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators by following a standardized protocol. We created an institutional protocol, made accessible as an online form, that is primarily technologist-driven and does not require direct electrophysiologist supervision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the PACEDMRI protocol for screening and completing MRI in patients with MR conditional CIEDs.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

After the implementation of our standardized PACED-MRI protocol, patients with MR conditional CIEDs who were referred for MRI were included in the study. On the day of the MRI, the device company representative utilized our protocol accessed through PACEDMRI.com. If all parameters and criteria within the protocol were met, the examination proceeded. The device representative programed the CIED to the appropriate mode for MRI as instructed by the PACED-MRI protocol. CIED interrogation was performed immediately before and after MRI. The on-call electrophysiology nurse practitioner was notified only if the protocol instructed the team to not proceed with MRI. CIED programming changes, malfunctions, and intraprocedural events were documented. Additionally, any adverse outcomes were recorded including peri-MRI symptom onset, arrhythmia, and death.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight MRI examinations were performed on patients with MR conditional CIEDs (100 pacemakers: 38 implantable cardiac defibrillators). There was no incidence of symptom onset requiring early termination of the MRI, death, or arrhythmic events during or after MRI. No significant changes in lead parameters, including sensing amplitudes, lead thresholds, or lead impedances were noted on post-MRI device interrogation. Out of the 138 completed MRIs, the on-call electrophysiology provider was notified on one, non-urgent occasion.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the standardized, technologists-driven PACED-MRI protocol allowed for a multidisciplinary approach to MRI for patients with MR conditional CIEDs. This study demonstrates that the PACED-MRI protocol can be used for patients with MR conditional CIEDs undergoing MRI without the need for direct electrophysiologist supervision.

Impact of wideband cardiac magnetic resonance on diagnosis, decision-making and outcomes in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

AIMS

Although myocardial scar assessment using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is frequently indicated for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), metal artefact can degrade image quality. With the new wideband technique designed to mitigate device related artefact, CMR is increasingly used in this population. However, the common clinical indications for CMR referral and impact on clinical decision-making and prognosis are not well defined. Our study was designed to address these knowledge gaps.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred seventy-nine consecutive patients with an ICD (age 59 ± 13 years, 75% male) underwent CMR using cine and wideband pulse sequences for LGE imaging. Electronic medical records were reviewed to determine the reason for CMR referral, whether there was a change in clinical decision-making, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Referral indication was the most common evaluation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate (n = 114, 64%), followed by cardiomyopathy (n = 53, 30%). Overall, CMR resulted in a new or changed diagnosis in 64 (36%) patients and impacted clinical management in 51 (28%). The effect on management change was highest in patients presenting with VT. A total of 77 patients (43%) experienced MACE during the follow-up period (median 1.7 years), including 65 in patients with evidence of LGE. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that ICD patients with LGE had worse outcomes than those without LGE (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The clinical yield from LGE CMR is high and provides management changing and meaningful prognostic information in a significant proportion of patients with ICDs.

Reducing cardiac implantable electronic device-induced artefacts in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-induced metal artefacts possibly significantly diminish the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), particularly cardiac MR (CMR). Right-sided generator implantation, wideband late-gadolinium enhancement (LGE) technique and raising the ipsilateral arm to the generator during CMR scanning may reduce the CIED-induced image artefacts. We assessed the impact of generator location and the arm-raised imaging position on the CIED-induced artefacts in CMR.

METHODS

We included all clinically indicated CMRs performed on patients with normal cardiac anatomy and a permanent CIED with endocardial pacing leads between November 2011 and October 2019 in our institution (n = 171). We analysed cine and LGE sequences using the American Heart Association 17-segment model for the presence of artefacts.

RESULTS

Right-sided generator implantation and arm-raised imaging associated with a significantly increased number of artefact-free segments. In patients with a right-sided pacemaker, the median percentage of artefact-free segments in short-axis balanced steady-state free precession LGE was 93.8% (IQR 9.4%, n = 53) compared with 78.1% (IQR 20.3%, n = 58) for left-sided pacemaker (p < 0.001). In patients with a left-sided implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, the median percentage of artefact-free segments reached 87.5% (IQR 6.3%, n = 9) using arm-raised imaging, which fell to 62.5% (IQR 34.4%, n = 9) using arm-down imaging in spoiled gradient echo short-axis cine (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Arm-raised imaging represents a straightforward method to reduce CMR artefacts in patients with left-sided generators and can be used alongside other image quality improvement methods. Right-sided generator implantation could be considered in CIED patients requiring subsequent CMR imaging to ensure sufficient image quality.

KEY POINTS

• Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-induced metal artefacts may significantly diminish the diagnostic value of an MRI, particularly in cardiac MRIs. • Raising the ipsilateral arm relative to the CIED generator is a cost-free, straightforward method to significantly reduce CIED-induced artefacts on cardiac MRIs in patients with a left-sided generator. • Right-sided generator implantation reduces artefacts compared with left-sided implantation and could be considered in CIED patients requiring subsequent cardiac MRIs to ensure adequate image quality in the future.

Trends in Utilization of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Stroke Patients With Cardiac Rhythm Devices

Background and Purpose

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is safe for most patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (AIS/TIA) who have CIEDs may undergo MRI less frequently than patients without devices. We assessed contemporary use of MRI for patients with AIS/TIA and the effect of a recent coverage revision by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on MRI utilization.

Methods

Using Optum® claims data from January 2012 to June 2019, we performed an interrupted time series analysis of MRI utilization during AIS/TIA hospitalizations with the April 2018 CMS coverage revision serving as the intervention. For patients treated after the coverage revision, we used multivariable logistic regression to determine the association between lack of CIED and MRI utilization for AIS/TIA.

Results

We identified 417,899 patient hospitalizations for AIS/TIA, of which 30,425 (7%) had a CIED present (CIED vs non-CIED patients: age 77.6 ± 9.8 vs 72.7 ± 12.3 years; 45.5% vs 54.3% female). From 2012 to 2019, annual MRI utilization increased from 3% to 20% for CIED patients and 58% to 66% for non-CIED patients. The CMS coverage revision was associated with a 4.2% absolute additional increase in MRI utilization for CIED patients. Non-CIED patients treated after the CMS coverage revision were substantially more likely than CIED patients to undergo MRI (adjusted OR 6.7, 95% CI: 6.3-7.1, P<.001).

Conclusions

MRI utilization has increased for stroke patients with CIEDs but remains far lower than in similar patients without devices.

[Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac devices : Useful tool or just artifacts?]

Cardiac magnetic resonance tomography (CMR) in patients with implanted cardiac devices is a challenge. This is due to artifacts that can occur in the presence of metallic implants such as device leads and generators and can ultimately lead to impaired or non-diagnostic images. Preliminary studies indicate that by employing newly developed MRI sequences together with well-established sequences, these problems can be mitigated. To aid in daily routine, an adaptive imaging workflow has been proposed which allows for tailored image acquisition.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of magnetic resonance imaging on functional integrity of non-conditional cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have historically restricted the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to the potential clinical and configurational risks associated with electromagnetic interference. In this study, the authors investigated the impact of MRI on the functional integrity of non-conditional CIEDs and their clinical correlates.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational single-center study, we enrolled patients undergoing MRI over a 5-year period. Prior to assessing the impact of MRI on CIEDs, we performed interrogations in sequential duplication to assess the intrinsic variability of devices. Subsequently, we performed interrogations immediately after MRI, and monitored changes in device parameters and clinical events.

RESULTS

We completed 492 MRI studies, 58% in patients with permanent pacemakers (PPMs) and 42% with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Subsequent MRI exposures occurred in 15% encounters. Accounting for intrinsic variability in CIED leads, there were no significant changes in RA, RV, or LV parameters after MRI, regardless of the region imaged (thoracic vs. non-thoracic), type of CIED (PPMs vs. ICDs) and among those with serial MRIs. When ranked for % change pre- to post-MRI, the majority of RA, RV, and LV metrics for thresholds, sensing, and impedance conformed to ≤20% change from baseline. No significant clinical adverse cardiac events or effect on device microcircuitry occurred during the study.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating a novel reproducibility tactic, there were neither clinically meaningful device parameter changes nor adverse clinical events during or following MRIs, suggesting the effects of MRI on non-conditional CIED integrity are far less than previously perceived.

Predictors of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Artifact on Cardiac MRI: The Utility of a Device Related Score

PURPOSE

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) image quality can be degraded by artifact in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). We aimed to establish a clinical risk score, so patient selection for diagnostic CMR could be optimised.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, CMRs performed for clinical use in subjects with CIED from January 2016 to May 2019 were reviewed. Subject anthropometry, CIED generator/lead specifications and pre-scan chest X-ray (CXR) measurements were collected. Generator-related artifact size was measured on axial steady state free precession images. Interpretability of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging was performed based on a three-grade visual score attributed to each of 17 myocardial segments.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven (57) patients (59±16 years, 74% male) fitted the inclusion criteria. Artifact precluded left ventricle (LV) evaluation (≥5 segments) in 17 (30%). Artifact was more common with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, related to generator volume, mass, height, width, thickness, and area, along with right ventricular (RV) lead length and diameter (all p<0.05). Artifact was associated with distance from generator to LV apex, generator to RV lead tip and shortest distance from generator to heart on CXR (all p<0.05). On multivariable regression modelling, RV lead diameter (OR 5.861, 95% CI 1.866-18.407, p=0.002) and distance from generator to LV apex (OR 0.693, 95% CI 0.511-0.940, p=0.019) were independent predictors of artifact. Multivariable predictors were used to develop Device Related CMR Artifact Prediction Score (DR-CAPS), where all patients with DR-CAPS=0 had fully interpretable LGE imaging.

CONCLUSION

Simple, readily available measures, such as lead characteristics and pre-scan CXR measures, can stratify patients via an artifact prediction score to optimise selection for diagnostic CMR.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging scanning in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators incorporating quadripolar left ventricular leads

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning of magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional cardiac implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can be performed safely following specific protocols. MRI safety with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) incorporating quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads is less clear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ICDs and CRT-D systems with quadripolar LV leads after an MRI scan.

METHODS

The ENABLE MRI Study included 230 subjects implanted with a Boston Scientific ImageReady ICD (n = 39) or CRT-D (n = 191) incorporating quadripolar LV leads undergoing nondiagnostic 1.5-T MRI scans (lumbar and thoracic spine imaging) a minimum of 6 weeks postimplant. Pacing capture thresholds (PCTs), sensing amplitudes (SAs), and impedances were measured before and 1 month post-MRI using the same programmed LV pacing vectors. The ability to sense/treat ventricular fibrillation (VF) was assessed in a subset of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients completed a protocol-required MRI scan (MRI Protection Mode turned on) with no scan-related complications. All right ventricular (RV) and left LV PCT and SA effectiveness endpoints were met: RV PCT 99% (145/146 patients), LV PCT 100% (120/120), RV SA 99% (145/146), and LV SA 98% (116/118). In no instances did MRI result in a change in pacing vector or lead revision. All episodes of VF were appropriately sensed and treated.

CONCLUSION

This first evaluation of predominantly CRT-D systems with quadripolar LV leads undergoing 1.5-T MRI confirmed that scanning was safe with no significant changes in RV/LV PCT, SA, programmed vectors, and VF treatment, thus suggesting that MRI in patients having a device with quadripolar leads can be performed without negative impact on CRT delivery.

Joint Position Paper of the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology (SFC) and the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV) on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the reference imaging for the management of a large number of diseases. The number of MR examinations increases every year, simultaneously with the number of patients receiving a cardiac electronic implantable device (CEID). A CEID was considered an absolute contraindication for MRI for years. The progressive replacement of conventional pacemakers and defibrillators by MR-conditional CEIDs and recent data on the safety of MRI in patients with "MR-nonconditional" CEIDs have progressively increased the demand for MRI in patients with a CEID. However, some risks are associated with MRI in CEID carriers, even with "MR-conditional" devices because these devices are not "MR-safe". A specific programing of the device in "MR-mode" and monitoring patients during MRI remain mandatory for all patients with a CEID. A standardized patient workflow based on an institutional protocol should be established in each institution performing such examinations. This joint position paper of the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology and the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV) describes the effect and risks associated with MRI in CEID carriers. We propose recommendations for patient workflow and monitoring and CEID programming in MR-conditional, "MR-conditional nonguaranteed" and MR-nonconditional devices.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Challenges and Solutions

Until recently, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) were an absolute contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), due to concerns about their adverse interaction in the MRI environment. The increasing clinical need to perform MRI examinations in these patients was an impetus to the development of MR-Conditional CIEDs. Secure performance of MRI in these patients requires scanning under specified MR conditions as well as operating the device in MR-scanning mode. This requires robust institutional protocols and a well-trained multidisciplinary team of radiologists, cardiologists, device applications specialists, physicists, nurses, and MRI technologists. MRI can also be performed in patients with non-MRI Conditional or "legacy" CIEDs by following safety precautions and continuous monitoring. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is additionally challenging due to expected susceptibility artifacts generated by the CIEDs, which are either near or in the heart. As the most common indication for CMR in these patients is the evaluation of myocardial scar/fibrosis, acquiring a high-quality late gadolinium enhancement image is of the utmost importance. This sequence is hampered by artifactual high signal due to inadequate myocardial nulling. Several solutions are available to reduce these artifacts, including reducing inhomogeneity, technical adjustments, and use of sequences that are more resilient to artifacts. In this article, we review the precautions for CMR in patients with CIEDs, provide guidelines for secure performance of CMR in these patients, and discuss techniques for obtaining high quality CMR images with minimized artifacts.

An operational approach to the execution of MR examinations in patients with CIED

In the context of the increasing spread of cardiac active implantable heart devices (CIEDs) in the population and of the wide diagnostic/therapeutic utility of magnetic resonance (MRI) examinations, the goal of this paper is to provide the experience of the Santa Maria Nuova Hospital of the USL Tuscany Center in Florence and to report an organizational proposal to perform, in the hospital settings, MRI examinations on patients carrying CIED. This report is intended to show the operational choices of a Radiology Department which organizes this activity in accordance with the new Italian regulatory framework in the field of safety of MR sites (Ministero della Salute in Decreto Ministeriale 10 agosto 2018 Determinazione degli standard di sicurezza e impiego per le apparecchiature a risonanza magnetica, 2018).

Magnetic resonance imaging in non-conditional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

There is growing evidence that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning in patients with non-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can be performed safely. Here, we aim to assess the safety of MRI in patients with non-conditional CIEDs.

Methods and results

English scientific literature was searched using PubMed/Embase/CINAHL with keywords of ‘magnetic resonance imaging’, ‘pacemaker’, ‘implantable defibrillator’, and ‘cardiac resynchronization therapy’. Studies assessing outcomes of adverse events or significant changes in CIED parameters after MRI scanning in patients with non-conditional CIEDs were included. References were excluded if the MRI conditionality of the CIEDs was undisclosed; number of patients enrolled was &lt;10; or studies were case reports/series. 35 cohort studies with a total of 5625 patients and 7196 MRI scans (0.5–3 T) in non-conditional CIEDs were included. The overall incidence of lead failure, electrical reset, arrhythmia, inappropriate pacing and symptoms related to pocket heating, or torque ranged between 0% and 1.43%. Increase in pacing lead threshold &gt;0.5 V and impedance &gt;50Ω was seen in 1.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7–1.8%] and 4.8% (95% CI 3.3–6.4%) respectively. The incidence of reduction in P- and R-wave sensing by &gt;50% was 1.5% (95% CI 0.6–2.9%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0.06–1.1%), respectively. Battery voltage reduction of &gt;0.04 V was reported in 2.2% (95% CI 0.2–6.1%).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis affirms the safety of MR imaging in non-conditional CIEDs with no death or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks and extremely low incidence of lead or device-related complications.

Making MRI available for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: growing need and barriers to change

Abstract

More than half of us will need a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan in our lifetimes. MRI is an unmatched diagnostic test for an expanding range of indications including neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, cancer diagnosis, and treatment planning. Unfortunately, patients with cardiac pacemakers or defibrillators have historically been prevented from having MRI because of safety concerns. This results in delayed diagnoses, more invasive investigations, and increased cost. Major developments have addressed this—newer devices are designed to be safe in MRI machines under specific conditions, and older legacy devices can be scanned provided strict protocols are followed. This service however remains difficult to deliver sustainably worldwide: MRI provision remains grossly inadequate because patients are less likely to be referred, and face difficulties accessing services even when referred. Barriers still exist but are no longer technical. These include logistical hurdles (poor cardiology and radiology interaction at physician and technician levels), financial incentives (re-imbursement is either absent or fails to acknowledge the complexity), and education (physicians self-censor MRI requests). This article therefore highlights the recent changes in the clinical, logistical, and regulatory landscape. The aim of the article is to enable and encourage healthcare providers and local champions to build MRI services urgently for cardiac device patients, so that they may benefit from the same access to MRI as everyone else.

Key Points

• There is now considerable evidence that MRI can be provided safely to patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, the volume of MRI scans delivered to patients with CIEDs is fifty times lower than that of the estimated need, and patients are approximately fifty times less likely to be referred.

• Because scans for this patient group are frequently for cancer diagnosis and treatment planning, MRI services need to develop rapidly, but the barriers are no longer technical.

• New services face logistical, educational, and financial hurdles which can be addressed effectively to establish a sustainable service at scale.

Clinical experience of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacing devices: unrestricted patient population

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac pacing devices has become available despite previously being considered absolutely contraindicated. However, most institutional safety protocols have included several limitations on patient selection, leaving MRI unavailable for many patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the first 1000 MRI examinations conducted on patients with cardiac pacing devices at Helsinki University Hospital for any potential safety hazards and also to evaluate the long-term functionality of the safety protocol in “real-life” clinical practice.

Material and Methods

A total of 1000 clinically indicated MRI scans were performed with a 1.5-T MRI scanner according to the safety protocol. The following information was collected from the electronic medical record (EMR): patients’ date of birth; sex; pacing device generator model; date of MRI scan; date of the latest pacing device generator implantation; and the body region scanned. The EMR of these patients was checked and especially searched for any pacing device related safety hazards or adverse outcomes during or after the MRI scan.

Results

Only one potentially dangerous adverse event was noted in our study group. In addition, patients with abandoned leads, temporary pacing devices, and newly implanted pacing device generators were scanned successfully and safely.

Conclusion

MRI scans can be performed safely in patients with cardiac pacing devices if the dedicated safety protocol is followed.

Feasibility, safety, and utility of brain MRI for patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIED

Feasibility, safety, and utility of brain MRI for patients with non-MRI-conditioned cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) remains controversial. While a growing number of studies have shown safe employment in select patients under strict protocols, there is an increasing clinical need for further off-label investigations. To assess the feasibility and utility of brain MRI in neurological and neurosurgical patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIEDs using off-label protocol. We retrospectively evaluated 126 patients with non-MRI-conditioned CIEDs referred to our hospital between 2014 to 2018 for MRI under an IRB-approved protocol. A total of 126 off-label brain MRI scans were performed. The mean age was 67.5 ± 13.0. Seventy percent of scans were performed on female patients. Indications for MRI are neurosurgical (45.2%), neurological (51.6%), and others (3.2%). MRI utilization for tumor cases was highest for tumor cases (68.3%), but employment was valuable for vascular (12.7%), deep brain stimulators (3.2%), and other cases (15.9%). In the tumor category, (37.2%) of the scans were performed for initial diagnosis and pre-surgical planning, (47.7%) for post-intervention evaluation/surveillance, (15.1%) for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment (CyberKnife). No clinical complications were encountered. No functional device complications of the CIED were identified during and after the MRI in 96.9% of the studies. A 49.6% of the off-label brain MRI scans performed led to a clinically significant decision and/or intervention for the patients. A 42.9% of obtained MRI studies did not change the plan of care. A 7.9% of post-scan decision-making data was not available. We demonstrate that off-label brain MRI scans performed on select patients under a strict protocol is feasible, safe, and relevant. Almost 50% of scans provided critical information resulting in clinical intervention of the patients.

MRI safety and devices: An update and expert consensus

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasing globally, and MRI safety issues regarding medical devices, which are constantly being developed or upgraded, represent an ongoing challenge for MRI personnel. To assist the MRI community, a panel of 10 radiologists with expertise in MRI safety from nine high-volume academic centers formed, with the objective of providing clarity on some of the MRI safety issues for the 10 most frequently questioned devices. Ten device categories were identified. The panel reviewed the literature, including key MRI safety issues regarding screening and adverse event reports, in addition to the manufacturer's Instructions For Use. Using a Delphi-inspired method, 36 practical recommendations were generated with 100% consensus that can aid the clinical MRI community. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:657-674.

Increased healthcare utilization associated with complete atrioventricular block in pacemaker patients

Purpose

The purpose of the current study is to characterize and quantify the impact of complete atrioventricular block (cAVB) on heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and healthcare utilization in pacemaker (PM) patients.

Methods

Patients ≥ 18 years implanted with a dual-chamber PM from April 2008 to March 2014 were selected from the MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. Patients with ≤ 1-year continuous MarketScan enrollment prior to and post-implant, and those with prior HF diagnosis were excluded. Patients were dichotomized into those with cAVB, defined as a 3rd degree AVB diagnosis or AV node ablation in the year prior to PM implant, versus those without any AVB (noAVB). Post-implant HFH and associated costs were compared based on inpatient claims.

Results

The study cohort included 21,202 patients, of which 14,208 had no AVB and 6994 had cAVB, followed for 2.39 and 2.27 years, respectively. Patients with cAVB were associated with a significantly increased risk of cumulative HFH (HR 1.59 [95% CI 1.35–1.86] p < 0.001) and significantly higher costs ($636 [609–697] vs $369 [353–405] per pt-year, p < 0.001) compared to those with no AVB.

Conclusions

Among dual-chamber PM patients without prior HF, cAVB is associated with a significantly increased risk of HFH and greater HF-related healthcare utilization. Identifying patients at high risk for HF in the setting of RV pacing, and potentially earlier use of biventricular or selective conduction system pacing, may reduce HF-related healthcare utilization.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10840-018-0336-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator

OBJECTIVES

To investigate safety and diagnostic value of 1.5-T MRI in carriers of conventional pacemaker (cPM) or conventional implantable defibrillator (cICD).

METHODS

We prospectively compared cPM/cICD-carriers undergoing MRI (study group, SG), excluding those device-dependent or implanted <6 weeks before enrolment or prior to 01/01/2000, with cPM/cICD-carriers undergoing chest x-ray, CT or follow-up (reference group, RG).

RESULTS

142 MRI (55 cardiac) were performed in 120 patients with cPM (n=71) or cICD (n=71). In the RG 98 measurements were performed in 95 patients with cPM (n=40) or cICD (n=58). No adverse events were observed. No MRI prolonged/interrupted. All cPM/cICD were correctly reprogrammed after MRI without malfunctions. One temporary communication failure was observed in one cPM-carrier. Immediately after MRI, 12/14 device interrogation parameters did not change significantly (clinically negligible changes of battery voltage and cICD charging time), without significant variations for SG versus RG. Three-12 months after MRI, 9/11 device interrogation parameters did not change significantly (clinically negligible changes of battery impedance/voltage). Non-significant changes of three markers of myocardial necrosis. Non-cardiac MRI: 82/87 diagnostic without artefacts; 4/87 diagnostic with artefacts; 1/87 partially diagnostic. Cardiac MRI: in cPM-carriers, 14/15 diagnostic with artefacts, 1/15 partially diagnostic; in cICD-carriers, 9/40 diagnostic with artefacts, 22 partially diagnostic, nine non-diagnostic.

CONCLUSIONS

A favourable risk-benefit ratio of 1.5-T MRI in cPM/cICD carriers was reported.

KEY POINTS

• Cooperation between radiologists and cardiac electrophysiologists allowed safe 1.5-T MRI in cPM/cICD-carriers. • No adverse events for 142 MRI in 71 cPM-carriers and 71 cICD-carriers. • Ninety-nine per cent (86/87) of non-cardiac MRI in cPM/cICD-carriers were diagnostic. • All cPM-carrier cardiac MRIs had artefacts, 14 examinations diagnostic, 1 partially diagnostic. • Twenty-three per cent (9/40) of cardiac MRI in cICD-carriers were non-diagnostic.

Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cardiac Devices

BACKGROUND

Patients who have pacemakers or defibrillators are often denied the opportunity to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) because of safety concerns, unless the devices meet certain criteria specified by the Food and Drug Administration (termed "MRI-conditional" devices).

METHODS

We performed a prospective, nonrandomized study to assess the safety of MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 Tesla in 1509 patients who had a pacemaker (58%) or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (42%) that was not considered to be MRI-conditional (termed a "legacy" device). Overall, the patients underwent 2103 thoracic and nonthoracic MRI examinations that were deemed to be clinically necessary. The pacing mode was changed to asynchronous mode for pacing-dependent patients and to demand mode for other patients. Tachyarrhythmia functions were disabled. Outcome assessments included adverse events and changes in the variables that indicate lead and generator function and interaction with surrounding tissue (device parameters).

RESULTS

No long-term clinically significant adverse events were reported. In nine MRI examinations (0.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.7), the patient's device reset to a backup mode. The reset was transient in eight of the nine examinations. In one case, a pacemaker with less than 1 month left of battery life reset to ventricular inhibited pacing and could not be reprogrammed; the device was subsequently replaced. The most common notable change in device parameters (>50% change from baseline) immediately after MRI was a decrease in P-wave amplitude, which occurred in 1% of the patients. At long-term follow-up (results of which were available for 63% of the patients), the most common notable changes from baseline were decreases in P-wave amplitude (in 4% of the patients), increases in atrial capture threshold (4%), increases in right ventricular capture threshold (4%), and increases in left ventricular capture threshold (3%). The observed changes in lead parameters were not clinically significant and did not require device revision or reprogramming.

CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated the safety of MRI, performed with the use of a prespecified safety protocol, in 1509 patients who had a legacy pacemaker or a legacy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system. No long-term clinically significant adverse events were reported. (Funded by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01130896 .).

Clinical Outcomes After Ablation of the AV Junction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Impact of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often undergo AV junction ablation (AVJA) and pacemaker implantation. Right ventricular (RV) pacing contributes to increased risk of heart failure (HF), which may be mitigated by biventricular pacing. We sought to determine the impact of AVJA concurrent with RV versus biventricular pacemaker implantation on AF and HF hospitalizations.

Methods and Results

The MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database was used to select 18‐ to 100‐year‐old patients with AF with pacemaker implantation. Patients were divided into those with an RV and a biventricular pacemaker and further into those who did (AVJA⁺) or did not undergo concurrent ablation. Separately, the AVJA⁺ group was divided into those receiving RV versus biventricular pacemakers. AF and HF hospitalization rates were compared between groups after matching on demographics, comorbidities, and baseline hospitalization rates. The study included 24 361 patients, with RV (n=23 377) or biventricular (n=984) pacemakers; 1611 patients underwent AVJA. AVJA⁺ was associated with reduced AF hospitalization risk (RV hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; P<0.001; biventricular HR, 0.20; P=0.003) compared with no AVJA. However, HF hospitalization risk was increased for RV (HR, 1.63; P=0.001), but not biventricular (HR, 0.98; P=0.942), pacemakers. In AVJA⁺ patients, biventricular pacing was associated with reduced risk of HF hospitalization versus RV pacing (HR, 0.62; P=0.017).

Conclusions

In a large cohort of patients with AF, AVJA⁺ significantly reduced AF hospitalizations, irrespective of whether an RV or a biventricular pacemaker was implanted. However, AVJA was associated with a marked HF hospitalization increase in patients with an RV pacemaker, which was ameliorated with biventricular pacing.

Provision of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with 'MR-conditional' cardiac implantable electronic devices: an unmet clinical need

Aims

Increasing need for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has driven the development of MR-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs; pacemakers and defibrillators); however, patients still report difficulties obtaining scans. We sought to establish current provision for MRI scanning of patients with CIEDs in England.

Methods and results

A survey was distributed to all hospitals in England with MRI, to assess current practice. Information requested included whether hospitals currently offer MRI to this patient group, the number and type of scans acquired, local safety considerations, complications experienced and perceived obstacles to service provision in those departments not currently offering it. Responses were received from 195 of 227 (86%) of hospitals surveyed. Although 98% of departments were aware of MR-conditional devices, only 46% (n = 89) currently offer MRI scans to patients with CIED's; of these, 85% of departments perform ≤10 scans per year. No major complications were reported from MRI scanning in patients with MR-conditional devices. Current barriers to service expansion include perceived concerns regarding potential risk, lack of training, logistical difficulties, and lack of cardiology support.

Conclusion

Provision of MRI for patients with CIEDs is currently poor, despite increasing numbers of patients with MR-conditional devices and extremely low reported complication rates.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with legacy pacemakers and defibrillators and abandoned leads

BACKGROUND

During magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abandoned leads may act as antennae that result in tissue heating and arrhythmia induction.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of MRI in patients with abandoned leads, with the addition of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) assessment to screen for myocardial damage.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected database of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing MRI between 2008 and 2017 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and selected patients who had abandoned leads. We compared the adverse events in this population with an age, sex, and site of MRI-matched cohort of patients selected from this database. We evaluated paired (before/after) cTnT values using MRI in these patients.

RESULTS

Of 952 patients, 80 (8.4%) underwent 97 MRI scans with CIEDs in situ with 90 abandoned leads in place during the scans. The median age was 66 years (interquartile range 22.3 years) 66.1 years (interquartile range, Q1,Q3: 53.6, 75.9) with 66.3% (53 patients) men. There was no clinical or electrical evidence of CIED dysfunction, arrhythmias, or pain. Paired samples for the measurement of cTnT values were available in 40 patients undergoing 44 MRI examinations. The mean difference between the pre- and postimaging values was -0.002 ± 0.006 ng/mL (interquartile range 0). There was no difference after adjustment for total number of leads per patient and total number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator coils.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of myocardial injury as measured by paired cTnT. The risk of MRI with abandoned leads appears low, suggesting a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with CIEDs and abandoned leads who are considered for MRI.

MRI of patients with implanted cardiac devices

Cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) have historically been regarded as a contraindication for performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), limiting the availability of this exam for large numbers of patients who may have otherwise benefited from the unique diagnostic capabilities of MRI. Interactions between CIEDs and the magnetic field associated with MRI systems have been documented, and include potential effects on CIED function, lead heating, and force/torque on the generator. Several device manufacturers have developed "MR-Conditional" CIEDs with specific hardware and software design changes to optimize the device for the MR environment. However, a substantial body of evidence has been accumulating that suggests that MRI may be safely performed in patients with either conditional or nonconditional CIEDs. Institutional policies and procedures, including preexam screening and assessment by skilled electrophysiology personnel and intraexam monitoring, allow MRI to be safely performed in CIED patients, as evidenced by at least two, large multicenter prospective studies and multiple smaller, single-institution studies. Cross-departmental collaboration and a robust safety infrastructure at sites that perform MRI should allow for the safe imaging of CIED patients who have a clinical indication for the study, regardless of the conditionality status of the device.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:595-603.

Safety and utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Off-label magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices has been limited owing to concerns about safety and unclear diagnostic and prognostic utility.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define major and minor adverse events with off-label MRI scans.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patients with non-MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electrical devices referred for MRI scans under a strict clinical protocol. The primary safety outcome was incidence of major adverse events (loss of pacing, inappropriate shock or antitachycardia pacing, need for system revision, or death) or minor adverse events (inappropriate pacing, arrhythmias, power-on-reset events, heating at the generator site, or changes in device parameters at baseline or at 6 months).

RESULTS

A total of 189 MRI scans were performed in 123 patients (63.1% [78] men; median age 70 ± 18.5 years; 56.9% [70] patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators; 33.3% [41] pacemaker-dependent patients) predominantly for brain or spinal conditions. A minority of scans (22.7% [43]) were performed for urgent or emergent indications. Major adverse events were rare: 1 patient with loss of pacing, no deaths, or system revisions (overall rate 0.5%; 95% confidence interval 0.01-2.91). Minor adverse events were similarly rare (overall rate 1.6%; 95% confidence interval 0.3-4.6). Nearly all studies (98.4% [186]) were interpretable, while 75.1% [142] were determined to change management according to the prespecified criteria. No clinically significant changes were observed in device parameters acutely after MRI or at 6 months as compared with baseline across all patient and device categories.

CONCLUSION

Off-label MRI scans performed under a strict protocol demonstrated excellent short- and medium-term safety while providing interpretable imaging that frequently influenced clinical care.

Image Quality of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator System Designed for the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Environment

BACKGROUND

Recently, magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems have become available. However, associated cardiac MR image (MRI) quality is unknown. The goal was to evaluate the image quality performance of various cardiac MR sequences in a multicenter trial of patients implanted with an MR-conditional ICD system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Evera-MRI trial enrolled 275 patients in 42 centers worldwide. There were 263 patients implanted with an Evera-MRI single- or dual-chamber ICD and randomized to controls (n=88) and MRI (n=175), 156 of whom underwent a protocol-required MRI (9-12 weeks post implant). Steady-state-free-precession (SSFP) and fast-gradient-echo (FGE) sequences were acquired in short-axis and horizontal long-axis orientations. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of image quality was performed by using a 7-point scale (grades 1-3: good quality, grades 6-7: nondiagnostic) and measuring ICD- and lead-related artifact size. Good to moderate image quality (grades 1-5) was obtained in 53% and 74% of SSFP and FGE acquisitions, respectively, covering the left ventricle, and in 69% and 84%, respectively, covering the right ventricle. Odds for better image quality were greater for right ventricle versus left ventricle (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.2; P<0.0001) and greater for FGE versus SSFP (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-4.8; P<0.0001). Compared with SSFP, ICD-related artifacts on FGE were smaller (141±65 versus 75±57 mm, respectively; P<0.0001). Lead artifacts were much smaller than ICD artifacts (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

FGE yields good to moderate quality in 74% of left ventricle and 84% of right ventricle acquisitions and performs better than SSFP in patients with an MRI-conditional ICD system. In these patients, cardiac MRI can offer diagnostic information in most cases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02117414.