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

When pacing or defibrillator leads become redundant: extract or abandon?

The 2017 HRS expert consensus paper on lead management and extraction did not express a preference for either extracting or abandoning pacing or defibrillator leads that are dysfunctional or superfluous after an upgrade (further referred to as redundant leads) 1. However, there are no randomized or even non-randomized trials that show a better patient outcome with extraction. Many experienced centers currently advise patients to have redundant leads removed to prevent more complicated procedures after years of abandonment. But according to the literature not all abandoned leads need to be extracted as more than 90% will have an uneventful follow-up. As immediate extraction of redundant leads has a small but significant risk this will generate more adverse events at population level than when extraction is limited to the patients with future lead complications, even considering a higher extraction risk at that time. Lead extraction is also limited to specialized centers and often necessitates expensive tools, in contrast to abandoning leads which can be safely performed by any experienced device specialist without additional cost.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices and abandoned or epicardial leads: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Persistent reluctance to perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with abandoned and/or epicardial leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices is related to in vitro studies reporting tip heating. While there is a plethora of data on the safety of MRI in conditional and non-conditional implantable devices, there is a clear lack of safety data in patients with abandoned and/or epicardial leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Relevant literature was identified in Medline and CINAHL using the key terms 'magnetic resonance imaging' AND 'abandoned leads' OR 'epicardial leads'. Secondary literature and cross-references were supplemented. For reporting guidance, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 was used. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number 465530. Twenty-one publications with a total of 656 patients with 854 abandoned and/or epicardial leads and 929 MRI scans of different anatomical regions were included. No scan-related major adverse cardiac event was documented, although the possibility of under-reporting of critical events in the literature should be considered. Furthermore, no severe device dysfunction or severe arrhythmia was reported. Mainly transient lead parameter changes were observed in 2.8% in the subgroup of patients with functional epicardial leads. As a possible correlate of myocardial affection, subjective sensations occurred mainly in the subgroup with abandoned epicardial leads (4.0%), but no change in myocardial biomarkers was observed.

CONCLUSION

Existing publications did not report any relevant adverse events for MRI in patients with abandoned and/or epicardial leads if performed according to strict safety guidelines. However, a more rigorous risk-benefit calculation should be made for patients with epicardial leads.

MRI in Patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices and Fractured or Abandoned Leads

Purpose To examine the clinical effect of lead length and lead orientation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and lead fragments or abandoned leads undergoing 1.5-T MRI. Materials and Methods This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study included patients with CIEDs and abandoned leads or lead fragments undergoing 1.5-T MRI from March 2014 through July 2020. CIED settings before and after MRI were reviewed, with clinically significant variations defined as a composite of the change in capture threshold of at least 50%, in sensing of at least 40%, or in lead impedance of at least 30% between before MRI and after MRI interrogation. Adverse clinical events were assessed at MRI and up to 30 days after. Univariable and multivariable analysis was performed. Results Eighty patients with 126 abandoned CIED leads or lead fragments underwent 107 1.5-T MRI examinations. Sixty-seven patients (median age, 74 years; IQR, 66-78 years; 44 male patients, 23 female patients) had abandoned leads, and 13 (median age, 66 years; IQR, 52-74 years; nine male patients, four female patients) had lead fragments. There were no reported deaths, clinically significant arrhythmias, or adverse clinical events within 30 days of MRI. Three patients with abandoned leads had a significant change in the composite of capture threshold, sensing, or lead impedance. In a multivariable generalized estimating equation analysis, lead orientation, lead length, MRI type, and MRI duration were not associated with a significant change in the composite outcome. Conclusion Use of 1.5-T MRI in patients with abandoned CIED leads or lead fragments of varying length and orientation was not associated with adverse clinical events. Keywords: Cardiac Assist Devices, MRI, Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Pre- and post-procedural cardiac imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) in electrophysiology: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging of the European Society of Cardiology

Imaging using cardiac computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has become an important option for anatomic and substrate delineation in complex atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation procedures. Computed tomography more common than MR has been used to detect procedure-associated complications such as oesophageal, cerebral, and vascular injury. This clinical consensus statement summarizes the current knowledge of CT and MR to facilitate electrophysiological procedures, the current value of real-time integration of imaging-derived anatomy, and substrate information during the procedure and the current role of CT and MR in diagnosing relevant procedure-related complications. Practical advice on potential advantages of one imaging modality over the other is discussed for patients with implanted cardiac rhythm devices as well as for planning, intraprocedural integration, and post-interventional management in AF and VT ablation patients. Establishing a team of electrophysiologists and cardiac imaging specialists working on specific details of imaging for complex ablation procedures is key. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can safely be performed in most patients with implanted active cardiac devices. Standard procedures for pre- and post-scanning management of the device and potential CMR-associated device malfunctions need to be in place. In VT patients, imaging-specifically MR-may help to determine scar location and mural distribution in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy beyond evaluating the underlying structural heart disease. Future directions in imaging may include the ability to register multiple imaging modalities and novel high-resolution modalities, but also refinements of imaging-guided ablation strategies are expected.

MRI in Adult Patients with Active and Inactive Implanted MR-conditional, MR-nonconditional, and Other Devices

Active implanted medical devices (AIMDs) enable therapy and patient monitoring by way of electrical activity and typically have a battery and electrical leads. The most common types of AIMDs include cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), spinal cord stimulators, deep brain stimulators, bone growth or fusion stimulators, other neurostimulators, and drug infusion pumps. As more patients with AIMDs undergo MRI, it is important to consider the safety of patients who have these implanted devices during MRI. The authors review the physics concepts related to MRI safety, such as peak spatial gradient magnetic field, specific absorption rate, root mean square value of the effective magnetic component of the transmitted RF pulse, and gradient slew rate, as well as the parameters necessary to remain within safety limits. The roles of MRI safety personnel, as set forth by the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, are emphasized. In addition, the relevant information provided in vendor manuals is reviewed, with a focus on how to obtain relevant up-to-date information. The radiologist should be able to modify protocols to meet safety requirements, address possible alternatives to MRI, and weigh the potential benefits of MRI against the potential risks. A few more advanced topics, such as fractured or abandoned device leads and patients with multiple implanted medical devices, also are addressed. Recommended workflows for MRI in patients with implanted medical devices are outlined. It is important to implement an algorithmic MRI safety process, including a review of the MRI safety information; patient screening; optimal imaging; and monitoring patients before, during, and after the examination. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Shetty et al in this issue.

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.

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.

Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 2-imaging after device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improve quality of life and prolong survival, but there are additional considerations for cardiovascular imaging after implantation-both for standard indications and for diagnosing and guiding management of device-related complications. This clinical consensus statement (part 2) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients after implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the role and optimal use of various cardiac imaging modalities in patients with suspected CIED-related complications and also discusses CRT optimization, the safety of magnetic resonance imaging in CIED carriers, and describes the role of chest radiography in assessing CIED type, position, and complications. The role of imaging before and during CIED implantation is discussed in a companion document (part 1).

Long-term outcomes of abandoned leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the long-term outcomes of abandoned leads (ALs) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of ALs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reviewed a single-center CIED registry of 2962 procedures performed from 1984-2018 and identified 130 patients with AL (AL group). We matched 2 controls without AL (by age, sex, device type, and device revision/removal date) to each patient with AL (n = 260) and compared CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality between groups using a Cox proportional hazard model analysis.

RESULTS

For a mean follow-up period of 11.2 ± 8.2 years, 14 (3.6%), 7 (1.8%), and 143 (36.7%) patients had a CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or experienced all-cause mortality, respectively. The AL group had more comorbidities than the control group. Lead malfunction was the most common cause of abandonment (64.6%). After adjustment for covariates, no significant intergroup differences were noted in the risks of infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-8.25; aHR 1.18; 95% CI 0.25-5.64; aHR 1.26; 95% CI 0.89-1.80, respectively). Patients with multiple ALs had increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality vs controls (aHR 8.61; 95% CI 2.13-34.84; aHR 2.42; 95% CI 1.17-5.00, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a single AL showed similar risks of CIED-related infections, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality as those without ALs, whereas those with multiple ALs showed increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality.

Multicenter retrospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Guidelines addressing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) provide algorithms for imaging pediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients. Guideline acceptance varies by institution. Guidelines also do not support routine MRI scans in patients with epicardial or abandoned leads, common in pediatric and CHD patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of MRI-related complications in pediatric and CHD patients with CIEDs, including epicardial and/or abandoned leads.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review included patients with CIEDs who underwent any MRI between 2007 and 2022 at congenital cardiac centers. The primary outcome was any patient adverse event or clinically significant CIED change after MRI, defined as pacing lead capture threshold increase >0.5 V with output change, P- or R- wave amplitude decrease >50% with sensitivity change, or impedance change >50%.

RESULTS

Across 14 institutions, 314 patients (median age 18.8 [1.3; 31.4] years) underwent 389 MRIs. There were 288 pacemakers (74%) and 87 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (22%); 52% contained epicardial leads, and 14 (4%) were abandoned leads only. Symptoms or CIED changes occurred in 4.9% of MRI scans (6.1% of patients). On 9 occasions (2%), warmth or pain occurred. Pacing capture threshold or lead impedance changes occurred in 1.4% and 2.0% of CIEDs post-MRI and at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our data provide evidence that MRIs can be performed in pediatric and CHD patients with CIEDs, including non-MRI-conditional CIEDs and epicardial and/or abandoned leads, with rare minor symptoms or CIED changes but no other complications.

Evaluation of a compact 3 T MRI scanner for patients with implanted devices

Access to high-quality MR exams is severely limited for patients with some implanted devices due to labeled MR safety conditions, but small-bore systems can overcome this limitation. For example, a compact 3 T MR scanner (C3T) with high-performance gradients can acquire exams of the head, extremities, and infants. Because of its reduced bore size and the patient being advanced only partially into the bore, the associated electromagnetic (EM) fields drop off rapidly caudal to the head, compared to whole-body systems. Therefore, some patients with MR conditional implanted devices can safely receive 3 T brain exams on the C3T using its strong gradients and a multiple-channel receive coil, while a corresponding exam on whole-body MR is precluded. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of a small-bore scanner for subjects with MR conditional spinal or sacral nerve stimulators, or abandoned cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) leads. The spatial dependence of specific absorption rate (SAR) on the C3T was compared to whole-body scanners. A device assessment tool was developed and applied to evaluate MR safety individually on the C3T for 12 subjects with implanted devices or abandoned CIED leads. Once MR safety was established, the subjects received a C3T brain exam along with their clinical, 1.5 T exam. The resulting images were graded by three board-certified neuroradiologists. The C3T exams were well-tolerated with no adverse events, and significantly outperformed the whole-body 1.5 T exams in terms of overall image quality.

Charting the Next Road Map for CSF Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias

Clinical prediction of underlying pathologic substrates in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia or related dementia syndromes (ADRD) has limited accuracy. Etiologic biomarkers - including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of AD proteins and cerebral amyloid PET imaging - have greatly modernized disease-modifying clinical trials in AD, but their integration into medical practice has been slow. Beyond core CSF AD biomarkers (including beta-amyloid 1-42, total tau, and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181), novel biomarkers have been interrogated in single- and multi-centered studies with uneven rigor. Here, we review early expectations for ideal AD/ADRD biomarkers, assess these goals' future applicability, and propose study designs and performance thresholds for meeting these ideals with a focus on CSF biomarkers. We further propose three new characteristics: equity (oversampling of diverse populations in the design and testing of biomarkers), access (reasonable availability to 80% of people at risk for disease, along with pre- and post-biomarker processes), and reliability (thorough evaluation of pre-analytical and analytical factors influencing measurements and performance). Finally, we urge biomarker scientists to balance the desire and evidence for a biomarker to reflect its namesake function, indulge data- as well as theory-driven associations, re-visit the subset of rigorously measured CSF biomarkers in large datasets (such as Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative), and resist the temptation to favor ease over fail-safe in the development phase. This shift from discovery to application, and from suspended disbelief to cogent ingenuity, should allow the AD/ADRD biomarker field to live up to its billing during the next phase of neurodegenerative disease research.

Abandoned Intracardiac Electrodes in an Oncological Patient

Cardiological and oncological patients comprise the majority of patients admitted to the emergency unit with chronic or acute conditions that are the dominant cause of death worldwide. However, electrotherapy and implantable devices (pacemakers and cardioverters) improve the prognosis of cardiological patients. We present the case report of a patient who, in the past, had a pacemaker implanted due to symptomatic sick sinus syndrome (SSS) without removing the two remaining leads. Echocardiography revealed severe tricuspid valve regurgitation. The tricuspid valve septal cusp was in a restricting position due to the two ventricular leads passing through the valve. A few years later, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. We present a 65-year-old female admitted to the department due to right ventricular failure. The patient manifested symptoms of right heart failure, predominated by ascites and lower extremity edema, despite increasing doses of diuretics. The patient underwent a mastectomy two years ago due to breast cancer and was qualified for thorax radiotherapy. A new pacemaker system was implanted in the right subclavian area as the pacemaker generator occupied the radiotherapy field. In the case of right ventricular lead removal and the need for pacing and resynchronization therapy, guidelines allow a coronary sinus for LV pacing to avoid passing the leads through the tricuspid valve. We facilitated this approach in our patient, suggesting that the percentage of ventricular pacing was very low.

Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Surgically Implanted Permanent Epicardial Leads

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety in patients with an epicardial cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and adverse effects of MRI in patients who had surgically implanted epicardial CIED.

METHODS

Patients with surgically implanted CIEDs who underwent MRI with an appropriate Cardiology-Radiology collaborative protocol between January 2008 and January 2021 were prospectively studied in two clinical centers. All patients underwent close cardiac monitoring through MRI procedures. Outcomes were compared between the epicardial CIED group and matched the non-MRI-conditional transvenous CIED group.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine consecutive patients with epicardial CIED (male 41.4%, mean age of 43 years) underwent 52 MRIs in the 57 anatomic regions. Sixteen patients had pacemakers, 9 had cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, and 4 had no device generators. There were no significant adverse events in epicardial or transvenous CIED groups. The battery life, pacing, sensing thresholds, lead impedance and cardiac biomarkers were not significantly changed, except one patient had a transient decrease in atrial lead sensing function.

CONCLUSION

MRI of CIEDs with epicardially implanted leads does not represent a greater risk than the transvenous CIEDs when performed with a multidisciplinary collaborative protocol centered on patient safety.

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.

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.

Nachsorge und MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit implantierten kardialen Aggregaten

In den 2021 publizierten ESC-Leitlinien wird im Rahmen des Kapitels über die Aggregatnachsorge insbesondere die Bedeutung der Telemetrie hervorgehoben. Durch eine telemetrische Nachsorge sind wesentlich seltener Präsenznachsorgen notwendig bei gleichwertiger oder sogar verbesserter Sicherheit. Eine telemetrische Überwachung sollte daher bei allen Patienten mit CIED erwogen werden.

Die Leitlinien beschreiben detailliert die Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen von MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit CIED. Programmierempfehlungen für die verschiedenen Hersteller werden dargestellt. Unter Einhaltung entsprechender Sicherheitsstandards kann eine MRT auch ohne größeres Risiko bei Patienten mit nicht MRT-kompatiblen Systemen erfolgen.

Should they stay, or should they go: do we need to remove the old cardiac implantable electronic device if a new system is required on the contralateral side?

Background

Ipsilateral approach in patients requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision or upgrade may not be feasible, primarily due to vascular occlusion. If a new CIED is implanted on the contralateral side, a common practice is to explant the old CIED to avoid device interaction.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess a conservative approach of abandoning the old CIED after implanting a new contralateral device.

Methods

We used an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze postimplant chest radiographs to identify those with multiple CIEDs. Outcomes of interest included device interaction, abandoned CIED elective replacement indicator (ERI) behavior, subsequent programming changes, and explant of abandoned CIED. Theoretical risk of infection with removal of abandoned CIED was estimated using a validated scoring system.

Results

Among 12,045 patients, we identified 40 patients with multiple CIEDs. Occluded veins were the most common indication for contralateral implantation (n = 27 [67.5%]). Fifteen abandoned CIEDs reached ERI, with 4 reverting to VVI 65. One patient underwent explant due to device interaction, and 2 required device reprogramming. Of 32 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 8 (25%) had treated ventricular arrhythmia. There were no failed or inappropriate therapies due to interaction. Eighteen patients (45%) had hypothetical >1% annual risk of hospitalization for device infection if the abandoned CIED had been explanted.

Conclusion

In patients requiring new CIED implant on the contralateral side, abandoning the old device is feasible. This approach may reduce the risk of infection and concerns regarding abandoned leads and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Knowledge of ERI behavior is essential to avoid device interactions.

[ESC guidelines 2021 on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy : What's new?]

The new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy were presented together with the new ESC heart failure guidelines at the ESC congress in September. The new document includes detailed sections on patient evaluation and clinical assessment, implantation, minimizing complications and patient follow-up. The guidelines have been updated and expanded particularly on the approach to reflex syncope, the indications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the perioperative management. The indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are now in line with the simultaneously published ESC heart failure guidelines. New physiological forms of stimulation and leadless pacing are now included in the guidelines.

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.

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: 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.

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.

The Use of Transvenous Lead Extraction of Non-Infected Leads to Prevent Long-Term Lead-Related Complications

The aim of the investigation was to study the issue of making challenging decisions concerning abandonment or removal of non-infected superfluous leads during lead revisions or cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades.

Magnetic resonance imaging interactions with a sacral neuromodulation system

Aims

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has successfully treated patients with functional urinary and/or bowel disorders for more than two decades. Historically, patients with the InterStim system (Medtronic) were contraindicated for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans. In 2012, Medtronic obtained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for allowing 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI head scans. In September 2019, the Axonics System (Axonics) received FDA approval for 1.5 T full‐body MR Conditional labeling and then 3 T full‐body MR Conditional labeling in July 2020. In August 2020, Medtronic received 1.5 and 3 T full‐body MR Conditional labeling from the FDA for their new SNM systems (InterStim II and Micro devices with SureScan^TM leads). With the advancements in MRI technology and availability of full‐body MRI eligible SNM systems, it is important for physicians to better understand MRI safety for these systems.

Methods

This paper explains the fundamentals of MRI physics, its interactions with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs), the subsequent potential safety hazards with emphasis on radio frequency (RF)‐related safety, and the risks associated with “Off‐label” scans, including abandoned and broken leads.

Results

MRI guidelines provided by the AIMD device manufacturer should be followed to ensure MRI scan safety and avoid any unnecessary risk to patients.

Conclusions

MRI guidelines provided by the device manufacturer are the best resource for guidance for performing safe MRI scanning. Specific conditions should be fully understood and generalizations on MRI safety claims based on partial analysis or case studies should be avoided.

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.

Radiofrequency-induced heating of broken and abandoned implant leads during magnetic resonance examinations

Purpose

The risks of RF‐induced heating of active implantable medical device (AIMD) leads during MR examinations must be well understood and realistically assessed. In this study, we evaluate the potential additional risks of broken and abandoned (cut) leads.

Methods

First, we defined a generic AIMD with a metallic implantable pulse generator (IPG) and a 100‐cm long lead containing 1 or 2 wires. Next, we numerically estimated the deposited in vitro lead‐tip power for an intact lead, as well as with wire breaks placed at 10 cm intervals. We studied the effect of the break size (wire gap width), as well as the presence of an intact wire parallel to the broken wire, and experimentally validated the numeric results for the configurations with maximum deposited in vitro lead‐tip power. Finally, we performed a Tier 3 assessment of the deposited in vivo lead‐tip power for the intact and broken lead in 4 high resolution virtual population anatomic models for over 54,000 MR examination scenarios.

Results

The enhancement of the deposited lead‐tip power for the broken leads, compared to the intact lead, reached 30‐fold in isoelectric exposure, and 16‐fold in realistic clinical exposures. The presence of a nearby intact wire, or even a nearby broken wire, reduced this enhancement factor to <7‐fold over the intact lead.

Conclusion

Broken and abandoned leads can pose increased risk of RF‐induced lead‐tip heating to patients undergoing MR examinations. The potential enhancement of deposited in vivo lead‐tip power depends on location and type of the wire break, lead design, and clinical routing of the lead, and should be carefully considered when performing risk assessment for MR examinations and MR conditional labeling.

2021 Update on Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Joint Statement From Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often considered the gold-standard test for characterizing cardiac as well as noncardiac structure and function. However, many patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and/or severe renal dysfunction are unable to undergo this test because of safety concerns. In the past 10 years, newer-generation CIEDs and gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) as well as coordinated care between imaging and heart rhythm device teams have mitigated risk to patients and improved access to MRI at many hospitals. The purpose of this statement is to review published data on safety of MRI in patients with conditional and nonconditional CIEDs in addition to patient risks from older and newer GBCAs. This statement was developed through multidisciplinary collaboration of pan-Canadian experts after a relevant and independent literature search by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. All recommendations align with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Key recommendations include: (1) the development of standardized protocols for patients with a CIED undergoing MRI; (2) patients with MRI nonconditional pacemakers and pacemaker dependency should be programmed to asynchronous mode and those with MRI nonconditional transvenous defibrillators should have tachycardia therapies turned off during the scan; and (3) macrocyclic or newer linear GBCAs should be used in preference to older GBCAs because of their better safety profile in patients at higher risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.

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.

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.

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments

Purpose

An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.

Methods

The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.

Results

For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.

Conclusions

No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.

2020 MR Safety for Cardiac Devices: An Update for Radiologists

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a unique and powerful diagnostic tool that provides images without ionizing radiation and, at times, can be the only modality to properly assess and diagnose some pathologies. Although many patients will need an MRI in their lifetime, many of them are still being unjustly denied access to it due to what were once considered absolute contraindications, including MR nonconditional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. However, there are a number of large studies that have recently demonstrated that MRI can safely be performed in these patients under certain conditions. In addition, there are an increasing number of novel cardiac devices implanted in patients who may require an MRI. Radiologists need to familiarize themselves with these devices, identify which patients with these devices can safely undergo MRI, and under which conditions. In this article, we will review the current literature on MR safety and cardiac devices, elaborate on how to safely image patients with cardiac devices, and share the expertise of our tertiary cardiac institute.

Safety and Clinical Impact of MRI in Patients with Non-MRI-conditional Cardiac Devices

Purpose

To explore the safety and clinical utility of MRI in participants with non-MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices, by establishing the Patient Registry of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Approved DEvices (PROMeNADe).

Materials and Methods

From September 2015 to June 2019, 532 participants (211 women) with a mean age of 69 years ± 14 (standard deviation) were enrolled prospectively in the PROMeNADe registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081364) and underwent a total of 608 MRI examinations (61 cardiac MRI examinations). All participants had device interrogations performed before and after each MRI. Pacemaker-dependent patients received asynchronous pacing. Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) had tachycardia therapies disabled during the MRI. An electrophysiology nurse monitored participants for any hemodynamic or rhythm abnormalities. Referring physicians were surveyed regarding the clinical utility of the MRI. Standard descriptive analyses included summary statistics with percentages and means.

Results

Cardiac devices included pacemakers (46%), ICDs (30%), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacemakers (4%), and CRT defibrillators (17%), as well as abandoned leads (2%). Pacemaker-dependent patients comprised 27% of all MRI examinations. There were no patient- or device-related complications. Clinical utility surveys of MRI examinations were completed by 150 physicians. According to the survey responses, these MRI examinations changed the suspected diagnosis 25% of the time and changed suspected prognosis in 26% of participants, with planned medical or surgical treatment being changed 42% of the time.

Conclusion

This registry demonstrates that MRI examinations, including thoracic MRI examinations, can be performed safely in patients who have non-MRI-conditional devices, in pacemaker-dependent patients with ICDs, and in patients with abandoned leads. These MRI examinations can have a substantial impact on patient care, justifying the extensive resources used to perform them.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020See also the commentary by Peshock in this issue.

MR Safety: Active Implanted Electronic Devices

New implanted medical devices continue to be made available for treatment of medical conditions. Many recipients can benefit from the diagnostic power of MR imaging. Provisions must be made to determine if these patients can be safely scanned. Metal-containing devices can be considered either MR unsafe or conditional. It is essential that all components of an implanted system are completely and accurately identified, with the most restrictive MR safety condition dictating the scanning approach. MR safety considerations for major classes of implanted devices are discussed, recognizing that there have been reports of serious device-related MR safety incidents.

Recommendations for Imaging Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs)

Historically, the presence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), was widely considered an absolute contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The recent development of CIEDs with MR Conditional labeling, as well as encouraging results from retrospective studies and a prospective trial on the safety of MRI performed in patients with CIEDs without MR Conditional labeling, have led to a reevaluation of this practice. The purpose of this report is to provide a concise summary of recent developments, including practical guidelines that an institution could adopt for radiologists who choose to image patients with CIEDs that do not have MR Conditional labeling. This report was written on behalf of and approved by the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) Safety Committee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

Prospective evaluation of the utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with non-MRI-conditional pacemakers and defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with legacy cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in situ is likely underutilized. We hypothesized the clinical benefit of MRI would outweigh the risks in legacy CIED patients.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study that evaluated and classified the utility of MRI using a prospectively maintained database. The outcomes were classified as aiding in diagnosis, treatment, or both for the patients attributable to the MRI. We then assessed the incidence of adverse effects (AE) when the MRI was performed.

RESULTS

In 668, MRIs performed on 479 patients, only 13 (1.9%) MRIs did not aid in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient. Power-on reset events without clinical sequelae in three scans (0.45%) were the only AE. The probability of an adverse event happening without any benefit from the MRI scan was 1.1 × 10^-4 . A maximum benefit in diagnosis using MRI was obtained in ruling out space-occupying lesions (121/185 scans, 65.4%). Scans performed in patients for elucidating answers to queries in treatment were most frequently done for disease staging at long term follow-up (167/470 scans, 35.5%). Conservative treatment (184/470 scans, 39%) followed by medication changes (153/470 scans, 28.7%) were the most common treatment decisions made.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of MRI in patients with non-MRI-conditional CIEDs far outweighs the risk of adverse events when imaging is done in the context of a multidisciplinary program that oversees patient safety.

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).

Multidisciplinary team management of carcinoid heart disease

Carcinoid heart disease (CHD) is a consequence of valvular fibrosis triggered by vasoactive substances released from neuroendocrine tumours, classically in those with metastatic disease and resulting in tricuspid and pulmonary valve failure. CHD affects one in five patients who have carcinoid syndrome (CS). Valve leaflets become thickened, retracted and immobile, resulting most often in regurgitation that causes right ventricular dilatation and ultimately, right heart failure. The development of CHD heralds a significantly worse prognosis than those patients with CS who do not develop valvular disease. Diagnosis requires a low threshold of suspicion in all patients with CS, since symptoms occur late in the disease process and clinical signs are difficult to elicit. As a result, routine screening is recommended using the biomarker, N-terminal pro-natriuretic peptide, and regular echocardiography is then required for diagnosis and follow-up. There is no direct medical therapy for CHD, but the focus of non-surgical care is to control CS symptoms, reduce tumour load and decrease hormone levels. Valve surgery improves long-term outcome for those with severe disease compared to medical management, although peri-operative mortality remains at between 10 and 20% in experienced centres. Therefore, care needs to be multidisciplinary at all stages, with clear discussion with the patient and between teams to ensure optimum outcome for these often-complex patients.

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.