Not all pacemakers are created equal: MRI conditional pacemaker and lead technology

Systematic review of leadless pacemaker

Conventional pacing systems consist of a pacemaker and one or more leads threaded from the device pocket through veins into the heart conducting the pacing therapy to the desired pacing site. Although these devices are effective, approximately one in eight patients treated with these traditional pacing systems experiences a complication attributed to the pacemaker pocket or leads. With the technological advances in electronics, leadless pacemakers that small enough to implant within the heart were introduced. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing including complications related to leads or pacemaker pockets. This review aims to provide an overview of advantages of leadless pacemaker, complications and limitations of leadless pacemaker, leadless pacemaker candidate, and future directions of this promising technology.

Performance and Physician Experience of INGEVITY+ Active Fixation Leads: Prospective INGEVITY+ Lead Clinical Study in Korea

Background

Boston Scientific INGEVITY+ pacing lead (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) has been upgraded to INGEVITY. The performance of the INGEVITY+ pacing lead has not yet been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term safety, effectiveness, and handling experience of INGEVITY+ leads.

Methods

Consecutive patients were included from 9 institutions in Korea, where 400 leads (200 right ventricular active fixation leads and 200 right atrial active fixation leads) were implanted or attempted in 200 subjects.

Results

During the implantation, only one patient required a lead change because of lead screw failure. The handling questionnaires of the lead received very positive feedback with 88% of operators agreeing that it is easy for leads to pass through small vessels or vessels with multiple leads. At the 3-month follow-up, 95.7% of RA leads and 99.5% of RV leads had pacing thresholds less than 1.5 V. A total of 92.4% of atrial leads had amplitudes greater than 1.5 mV, and 96.5% of ventricular leads had sensing amplitudes greater than 5 mV at 3 months. A total of 99.8% had impedances between 300 and 1,300 ohms. The lead-related complication-free rate for all leads during follow-up was 100%, and the overall rates of lead dislodgment, perforation, and pericardial effusion were all 0.0%.

Conclusions

The INGEVITY+ pacing lead exhibited exceptional clinical performance, with a high complication-free rate throughout the 3-month follow-up period. In addition, the lead displayed excellent electrical characteristics, and the lead-handling experience was reported to be very good.

Detection of Pacemaker and Identification of MRI-conditional Pacemaker Based on Deep-learning Convolutional Neural Networks to Improve Patient Safety

With the increased availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a progressive rise in the frequency of cardiac device implantation, there is an increased chance that patients with implanted cardiac devices require MRI examination during their lifetime. Though MRI is generally contraindicated in patients who have undergone pacemaker implantation with electronic circuits, the recent introduction of MR Conditional pacemaker allows physicians to take advantage of MRI to assess these patients during diagnosis and treatment. When MRI examinations of patients with pacemaker are requested, physicians must confirm whether the device is a conventional pacemaker or an MR Conditional pacemaker by reviewing chest radiographs or the electronic medical records (EMRs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) trained to detect pacemakers on chest radiographs and to determine the device's subclassification. The DCNN perfectly detected pacemakers on chest radiographs and the accuracy of the subclassification of pacemakers using the internal and external test datasets were 100.0% (n = 106/106) and 90.1% (n = 279/308). The DCNN can be applied to the radiologic workflow for double-checking purposes, thereby improving patient safety during MRI and preventing busy physicians from making errors.

Diagnosing malignant distal bile duct obstruction using artificial intelligence based on clinical biomarkers

Diagnosing distal bile duct obstruction remains challenging. This study aimed to examine the diagnostic ability of artificial intelligence (AI) based on clinical biomarkers in diagnosing malignant distal bile duct obstruction. A total of 206 patients with distal bile duct obstruction were included in this study. Clinical laboratory parameters were collected from the patients and evaluated using AI. All clinical parameters were input into the AI algorithm, and the AI value for malignant distal bile duct obstruction was calculated. The benign and malignant diagnostic capabilities of AI and other factors (alkaline phosphatase [ALP], intrahepatic bile duct [IHBD] diameters, and total bile duct [CBD] diameters) were compared. Benign and malignant bile duct obstruction were diagnosed in 142 and 64 patients, respectively. The median AI value of malignant distal bile duct obstruction was significantly greater than that of benign distal bile duct obstruction (0.991 vs. 0.002, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of AI, ALP, IHBD diameter, and CBD diameter were 0.908, 0.795, 0.794, and 0.775, respectively. AI showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 83.1%, 87.2%, and 85.9%. AI-based on clinical biomarkers could serve as an auxiliary for diagnosing malignant bile duct obstruction.

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.

Pre-deployment assessment of an AI model to assist radiologists in chest X-ray detection and identification of lead-less implanted electronic devices for pre-MRI safety screening: realized implementation needs and proposed operational solutions

Purpose

Chest X-ray (CXR) use in pre-MRI safety screening, such as for lead-less implanted electronic device (LLIED) recognition, is common. To assist CXR interpretation, we "pre-deployed" an artificial intelligence (AI) model to assess (1) accuracies in LLIED-type (and consequently safety-level) identification, (2) safety implications of LLIED nondetections or misidentifications, (3) infrastructural or workflow requirements, and (4) demands related to model adaptation to real-world conditions.

Approach

A two-tier cascading methodology for LLIED detection/localization and identification on a frontal CXR was applied to evaluate the performance of the original nine-class AI model. With the unexpected early appearance of LLIED types during simulated real-world trialing, retraining of a newer 12-class version preceded retrialing. A zero footprint (ZF) graphical user interface (GUI)/viewer with DICOM-based output was developed for inference-result display and adjudication, supporting end-user engagement and model continuous learning and/or modernization.

Results

During model testing or trialing using both the nine-class and 12-class models, robust detection/localization was consistently 100%, with mAP 0.99 from fivefold cross-validation. Safety-level categorization was high during both testing ( AUC ≥ 0.98 and ≥ 0.99 , respectively) and trialing (accuracy 98% and 97%, respectively). LLIED-type identifications by the two models during testing (1) were 98.9% and 99.5% overall correct and (2) consistently showed AUC ≥ 0.92 (1.00 for 8/9 and 9/12 LLIED-types, respectively). Pre-deployment trialing of both models demonstrated overall type-identification accuracies of 94.5% and 95%, respectively. Of the small number of misidentifications, none involved MRI-stringently conditional or MRI-unsafe types of LLIEDs. Optimized ZF GUI/viewer operations led to greater user-friendliness for radiologist engagement.

Conclusions

Our LLIED-related AI methodology supports (1) 100% detection sensitivity, (2) high identification (including MRI-safety) accuracy, and (3) future model deployment with facilitated inference-result display and adjudication for ongoing model adaptation to future real-world experiences.

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

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

Thermo-Acoustic Ultrasound for Detection of RF-Induced Device Lead Heating in MRI

Patients who have implanted medical devices with long conductive leads are often restricted from receiving MRI scans due to the danger of RF-induced heating near the lead tips. Phantom studies have shown that this heating varies significantly on a case-by-case basis, indicating that many patients with implanted devices can receive clinically useful MRI scans without harm. However, the difficulty of predicting RF-induced lead tip heating prior to scanning prevents numerous implant recipients from being scanned. Here, we demonstrate that thermo-acoustic ultrasound (TAUS) has the potential to be utilized for a pre-scan procedure assessing the risk of RF-induced lead tip heating in MRI. A system was developed to detect TAUS signals by four different TAUS acquisition methods. We then integrated this system with an MRI scanner and detected a peak in RF power absorption near the tip of a model lead when transmitting from the scanner's body coil. We also developed and experimentally validated simulations to characterize the thermo-acoustic signal generated near lead tips. These results indicate that TAUS is a promising method for assessing RF implant safety, and with further development, a TAUS pre-scan could allow many more patients to have access to MRI scans of significant clinical value.

Pacemakers in MRI for the Neuroradiologist

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are frequently encountered in clinical practice in patients being screened for MR imaging examinations. Traditionally, the presence of these devices has been considered a contraindication to undergoing MR imaging. Growing evidence suggests that most of these patients can safely undergo an MR imaging examination if certain conditions are met. This document will review the relevant cardiac implantable electronic devices encountered in practice today, the background physics/technical factors related to scanning these devices, the multidisciplinary screening protocol used at our institution for scanning patients with implantable cardiac devices, and our experience in safely performing these examinations since 2010.

Magnetic resonance examination of patients with implanted pacemakers: An evaluation of magnetic field gradients slew rate

Performing safe magnetic resonance imaging of patients with "MR conditional" pacemakers needs to meet some specific restrictions. One of these is related to the slew rate (SR) parameter, defined as the speed of magnetic field gradients rising up to their required strengths. Unfortunately, SR values cannot be easily checked at the tomograph console. The present work provides an accurate evaluation of the maximum SR for a set of widely used clinical MR sequences. The experimental approach is based on indirect measurement of time-varying spatial magnetic field gradients. All MR sequences evaluated match safety SR prescriptions. Moreover, an appropriate choice of sequence scan parameters defines some optimized scan protocols tailored for the tomograph considered in the present study. Bioelectromagnetics. 38:307-314, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Safety issues and updates under MR environments

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a useful imaging tool with superior soft tissue contrast for diagnostic evaluation. The MR environments poses unique risks to patients and employees differently from ionizing radiation exposure originated from computed tomography and plain x-ray films. The technology associated with MR system has evolved continuously since its introduction in the late 1970s. MR systems have advanced with static magnetic fields, faster and stronger gradient magnetic fields and more powerful radiofrequency transmission coils. Higher field strengths of MR offers greater signal to noise capability and better spatial resolution, resulting in better visualization of anatomic detail, with a reduction in scan time. With the rapid evolution of technology associated with MR, we encounter new MR-related circumstances and unexpected dangerous conditions. A comprehensive update of our knowledge about MR safety is necessary to prevent MR-related accidents and to ensure safety for patients and staff associated with MR. This review presents an overview about MR-related safety issues and updates.

Cardiac MRI in patients with complex CHD following primary or secondary implantation of MRI-conditional pacemaker system

OBJECTIVES

In patients with CHD, cardiac MRI is often indicated for functional and anatomical assessment. With the recent introduction of MRI-conditional pacemaker systems, cardiac MRI has become accessible for patients with pacemakers. The present clinical study aims to evaluate safety, susceptibility artefacts, and image reading of cardiac MRI in patients with CHD and MRI-conditional pacemaker systems. Material and methods CHD patients with MRI-conditional pacemaker systems and a clinical need for cardiac MRI were examined with a 1.5-T MRI system. Lead function was tested before and after MRI. Artefacts and image readings were evaluated using a four-point grading scale.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients with CHD (mean age 34.0 years, range 19.5-53.6 years) received a total of 11 cardiac MRI examinations. Owing to clinical indications, seven patients had previously been converted from conventional to MRI-conditional pacemaker systems. All MRI examinations were completed without adverse effects. Device testing immediately after MRI and at follow-up showed no alteration of pacemaker device and lead function. Clinical questions could be addressed and answered in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac MRI can be performed safely with high certainty of diagnosis in CHD patients with MRI-conditional pacemaker systems. In case of clinically indicated lead and box changing, CHD patients with non-MRI-conditional pacemaker systems should be considered for complete conversion to MRI-conditional systems.

Clinical value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with MR-conditional pacemakers

AIMS

Magnetic resonance (MR) conditional pacemakers are increasingly implanted into patients who may need cardiovascular MR (CMR) subsequent to device implantation. We assessed the added value of CMR for diagnosis and management in this population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CMR and pacing data from consecutive patients with MR conditional pacemakers were retrospectively reviewed. Images were acquired at 1.5 T (Siemens Magnetom Avanto). The indication for CMR and any resulting change in management was recorded. The quality of CMR was rated by an observer blinded to clinical details, and data on pacemaker and lead parameters were collected pre- and post-CMR. Seventy-two CMR scans on 69 patients performed between 2011 and 2015 were assessed. All scans were completed successfully with no significant change in lead thresholds or pacing parameters. Steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging resulted in a greater frequency of non-diagnostic imaging (22 vs. 1%, P < 0.01) compared with gradient echo sequences (GRE). Right-sided pacemakers were associated with less artefact than left-sided pacemakers. Late gadolinium enhancement imaging was performed in 59 scans with only 2% of segments rated of non-diagnostic quality. The CMR data resulted in a new diagnosis in 27 (38%) of examinations; clinical management was changed in a further 18 (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

CMR in patients with MR conditional pacemakers provided diagnostic or management-changing information in the majority (63%) of our cohort. The use of gradient echo cine sequences can reduce rates of non-diagnostic imaging. Right-sided device implantation may be considered in patients likely to require CMR examination.

MRI and cardiac implantable electronic devices; current status and required safety conditions

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has evolved into an essential diagnostic modality for the evaluation of all patient categories. This gain in popularity coincided with an increase in the number of implanted cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Therefore, questions arose with regard to the MRI compatibility of these devices. Various investigators have reported the harmless performance of MRI in patients with conventional (non-MRI conditional) devices. The recently published European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) indicate that MRI can be safely performed in patients with an implanted pacemaker or ICD (MRI conditional or not), as long as strict safety conditions are met. This is a major modification of the former general opinion that patients with a pacemaker or ICD were not eligible to undergo MRI. This review paper attempts to elucidate the current situation for practising cardiologists by providing a clear overview of the potential life-threatening interactions and discuss safety measures to be taken prior to and during scanning. An overview of all available MRI conditional devices and their individual restrictions is given. In addition, an up-to-date safety protocol is provided that can be used to ensure patient safety before, during and after the scan. Key points • Historically, MRI examination of patients with a CIED has been considered hazardous. • Ongoing advances in technology and increasing usage of MRI in clinical practice have led to the introduction of MRI conditional CIEDs and to more lenient regulations on the examination of patients with non-conditional CIEDs. • MRI investigations can be performed safely in selected patients when adhering to a standardised up-to-date safety protocol.

MRI-conditional pacemakers: current perspectives

Use of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pacing devices has undergone remarkable growth in recent years, and it is estimated that the majority of patients with pacemakers will need an MRI during their lifetime. These investigations will generally be denied due to the potentially dangerous interactions between cardiac devices and the magnetic fields and radio frequency energy used in MRI. Despite the increasing reports of uneventful scanning in selected patients with conventional pacemakers under close surveillance, MRI is still contraindicated in those circumstances and cannot be considered a routine procedure. These limitations prompted a series of modifications in generator and lead engineering, designed to minimize interactions that could compromise device function and patient safety. The resulting MRI-conditional pacemakers were first introduced in 2008 and the clinical experience gathered so far supports their safety in the MRI environment if certain conditions are fulfilled. With this technology, new questions and controversies arise regarding patient selection, clinical impact, and cost-effectiveness. In this review, we discuss the potential risks of MRI in patients with electronic cardiac devices and present updated information regarding the features of MRI-conditional pacemakers and the clinical experience with currently available models. Finally, we provide some guidance on how to scan patients who have these devices and discuss future directions in the field.