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.

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

Objective

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Safety in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

High strength magnetic and electric fields used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) render images with unmatched soft tissue contrast. These imaging attributes have made MRI an increasingly preferred diagnostic tool in many medical conditions. Initially there was substantial concern regarding the safety of performing these imaging studies in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), which have the potential to be affected by the intense electric and magnetic fields of the MRI. More recently, there has been increasing evidence that MRI can be performed safely in patients with devices that have not been specifically labelled by regulatory agencies for use in an MRI environment (MRI nonconditional devices), which has allowed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to start providing reimbursement for MRIs of patients with MRI nonconditional devices. For CMS to reimburse scans, a rigorous protocol must be followed, which recognizes that there are still potential adverse effects that can be mitigated by appropriate procedures. In this review we will survey the initial experiences and efforts to understand the magnitude of risk for device malfunction and harm, as well as current efforts to minimize the potential risks of MRI effects on devices and leads (heating, device movement, lead dislodgement, and device malfunction, the latter including inhibition of pacing and generation of arrhythmias).

Safety of magnetic resonance scanning without monitoring of patients with pacemakers

Aims

The objective of this study was to investigate whether it is safe to perform 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in pacemaker (PM) patients without pulse oximetry or electrocardiogram monitoring and with no special specific absorption rate (SAR) or time limits, provided that the PMs are interrogated and programmed to asynchronous mode prior to the scan.

Methods and results

This study reports the outcome of 207 MRI scans on PM patients at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital from June 2010 to September 2013. All MRIs were performed with the PMs in asynchronous mode and without additional monitoring. There were no adverse events registered among the PM patients during the study period. The only statistically significant change after MRI scans was a small, but clinically insignificant increase in atrial sense. No occurrences of reprogramming to power-on-reset were registered.

Conclusion

It is possible to perform MRI scans relatively safely in PM patients without additional monitoring or change in the normal MRI protocol, given that the PM has been assessed and reprogrammed prior to MRI. This is especially important to remember in the acute setting where MRI scans may be delayed when monitoring facilities are unavailable.

Retained cardiac implantable electronic device fragments are not associated with magnetic resonance imaging safety issues, morbidity, or mortality after orthotopic heart transplant

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device therapy (CIED) has revolutionized treatment for advanced heart failure. Most patients considered for orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) are treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, or both. These CIEDs are surgically extracted at the time of transplant. Occasionally, CIEDs are incompletely removed. Little is known about the outcomes of post-OHT patients with retained CIED fragments.

METHODS

We identified 200 consecutive patients that underwent OHT at our institution between April 2006 and December 2014 and performed a retrospective analysis of available radiographic images and clinical records. Chest radiographs prior to and following OHT were reviewed for the presence of CIED or retained CIED fragments. The outcomes of patients with retained CIED fragments that had subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies performed were further investigated.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty of 200 patients were identified as having CIED prior to OHT, of which 29 had retained CIED fragments after OHT. Most retained CIED fragments originated from superior vena cava defibrillator coils. There were no adverse events in the retained CIED fragment cohort, and survival was unaffected. Ten patients with retained CIED fragments safely underwent a total of 28 MRIs after OHT, all of diagnostic quality.

CONCLUSION

Retained CIED fragments are not associated with adverse events or increased mortality after OHT. Diagnostic MRI has been safely performed in patients with retained CIED fragments after incomplete device extraction. Retrieval of these fragments prior to MRI does not appear warranted given the demonstrated safety and preserved image quality in this population.

Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device has long been a contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We established a prospective registry to determine the risks associated with MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 tesla for patients who had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that was "non-MRI-conditional" (i.e., not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MRI scanning).

METHODS

Patients in the registry were referred for clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at a field strength of 1.5 tesla. Devices were interrogated before and after MRI with the use of a standardized protocol and were appropriately reprogrammed before the scanning. The primary end points were death, generator or lead failure, induced arrhythmia, loss of capture, or electrical reset during the scanning. The secondary end points were changes in device settings.

RESULTS

MRI was performed in 1000 cases in which patients had a pacemaker and in 500 cases in which patients had an ICD. No deaths, lead failures, losses of capture, or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during MRI. One ICD generator could not be interrogated after MRI and required immediate replacement; the device had not been appropriately programmed per protocol before the MRI. We observed six cases of self-terminating atrial fibrillation or flutter and six cases of partial electrical reset. Changes in lead impedance, pacing threshold, battery voltage, and P-wave and R-wave amplitude exceeded prespecified thresholds in a small number of cases. Repeat MRI was not associated with an increase in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, device or lead failure did not occur in any patient with a non-MRI-conditional pacemaker or ICD who underwent clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 tesla, was appropriately screened, and had the device reprogrammed in accordance with the prespecified protocol. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; MagnaSafe ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00907361 .).

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: how far have we come?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has long been regarded a general contraindication in patients with cardiovascular implanted electronic devices such as cardiac pacemakers or cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) due to the risk of severe complications and even deaths caused by interactions of the magnetic resonance (MR) surrounding and the electric devices. Over the last decade, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms responsible for such potentially life-threatening complications as well as technical advances have allowed an increasing number of pacemaker and ICD patients to safely undergo MRI. This review lists the key findings from basic research and clinical trials over the last 20 years, and discusses the impact on current day clinical practice. With ‘MR-conditional’ devices being the new standard of care, MRI in pacemaker and ICD patients has been adopted to clinical routine today. However, specific precautions and specifications of these devices should be carefully followed if possible, to avoid patient risks which might appear with new MR technology and further increasing indications and patient numbers.

MRI and implantable cardiac electronic devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the current knowledge about the potential hazard from MRI in patients with devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Most data concern 'MRI unsafe' devices, with only a few studies on 'MRI conditional' devices. No 'MRI safe' cardiac devices are currently available. Studies on 'MRI unsafe' devices tend to be small scale and reflect the experience of individual centres; few provide long-term follow-up data. Many newer devices are approved as 'MRI conditional' based on technical simulations or postmarket surveillance studies. With adequate measures taken before performing an MRI scan, reported complication rates are generally low, but there is a nonnegligible residual risk for power-on reset and lead heating. The presence of abandoned, older leads may affect the propensity for lead heating during MRI with newer devices, including those designated 'MRI conditional'. Very little research has been carried out on the hazard from MRI scans in patients with ICDs, but registry data indicate more events with ICDs than with pacemakers.

SUMMARY

The limited available data indicate a manageable but not negligible MRI-associated hazard in patients with implantable cardiac devices. Further controlled studies and large, independent registries, particularly in Europe, are needed to provide important safety information.

Immediate and 12 months follow up of function and lead integrity after cranial MRI in 356 patients with conventional cardiac pacemakers

BACKGROUND

Conventional cardiac pacemakers are still often regarded as a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We conducted this study to support the hypothesis that it is safe to scan patients with cardiac pacemakers in a 1.5 Tesla MRI, if close supervision and monitoring as well as adequate pre- and postscan programming is provided.

METHODS

We followed up 356 patients (age 61.3 ± 9.1 yrs., 229 men) with single (n = 132) or dual chamber (n = 224) cardiac pacemakers and urgent indication for a cranial MRI for 12 months. The scans were performed at 1.5T. During the scan patients were monitored with a 3-lead ECG and pulse oximetry. Prior to the scan pacemakers were programmed according to our own protocol.

RESULTS

All 356 scans were completed without complications. No arrhythmias were induced, programmed parameters remained unchanged. No pacemaker dysfunction was identified. Follow-up examinations were performed immediately, 2 weeks, 2, 6, and 12 months after the scan. There was no significant change of pacing capture threshold (ventricular 0.9 ± 0.4 V@0.4 ms, atrial 0.9 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms) immediately (ventricular 1.0 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms, atrial 0.9 ± 0.4 V@0.4 ms) or at 12 months follow-up examinations (ventricular 0.9 ± 0.2 V@0.4 ms, atrial 0.9 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms). There was no significant change in sensing threshold (8.0 ± 4.0 mV vs. 8.1 ± 4.2 mV ventricular lead, 2.0 ± 0.9 mV vs. 2.1 ± 1.0 mV atrial lead) or lead impedance (ventricular 584 ± 179 Ω vs. 578 ± 188 Ω, atrial 534 ± 176 Ω vs. 532 ± 169 Ω) after 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This supports the evidence that patients with conventional pacemakers can safely undergo cranial MRI in a 1.5T system with suitable preparation, supervision and precautions. Long term follow-up did not reveal significant changes in pacing capture nor sensing threshold.

Determining the risks of clinically indicated nonthoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T for patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: rationale and design of the MagnaSafe Registry

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the presence of a permanent pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator has been a relative contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A number of small studies have shown that MRI can be performed with minimal risk when patients are properly monitored and device programming is modified appropriately for the procedure. However, the risk of performing MRI for patients with implanted cardiac devices has not been sufficiently evaluated to advocate routine clinical use. The aim of the present protocol is to prospectively determine the rate of adverse clinical events and device parameter changes in patients with implanted non-MRI-conditional cardiac devices undergoing clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 T.

METHODS

The MagnaSafe Registry is a multicenter, prospective cohort study of up to 1500 MRI examinations in patients with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators implanted after 2001 who undergo clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI following a specific protocol to ensure that preventable potential adverse events are mitigated. Adverse events and changes in device parameter measurements that may be associated with the imaging procedure will be documented.

RESULTS

Through August 2012, 701 MRI studies have been performed, representing 47% of the total target enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this registry will provide additional documentation of the risk of MRI and will further validate a clinical protocol for screening and the performance of clinically indicated MRI for patients with implanted cardiac devices.