Clinical Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conditional and Nonconditional Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is diversity harmful?-Mixed-brand cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

Background

Many patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, a relevant proportion have a CIED system that has not been classified as MRI-conditional because of generators and leads from different brands (mixed-brand group). The available data concerning the outcome of these mixed patients undergoing MRI is limited.

Methods

A retrospective single center study, including all patients with CIEDs undergoing MRI between January 2013 until May 2020, was performed. Primary endpoints were defined as death or any adverse event necessitating hospitalization or CIED revision. Secondary endpoints were the occurrence of any sign for beginning device or lead failure or patient discomfort during MRI.

Results

A total of 227 MRI examinations, including 10 thoracic MRIs, were carried out in 158 patients, with 1–9 MRIs per patient. Of the patients 38 underwent 54 procedures in the mixed-brand group and 89 patients underwent 134 MRIs in the MRI-conditional group. Of the patients 31 were excluded since the MRI conditionality could not be determined. No primary endpoints occurred within the mixed-brand group but in 2.2% of the MRI-conditional group (p = 1.000), with 2 patients developing new atrial fibrillation during MRI, of whom one additionally had a transient CIED dysfunction. No secondary endpoints were met in the mixed-brand group compared to 3.4% in the MRI-conditional group (p = 0.554). No complications occurred in the excluded patients.

Conclusion

The complication rate of CIED patients undergoing MRI was low. Patients with a mixed CIED system showed no signs of increased risk of adverse events compared to patients with MRI-conditional CIED systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00508-021-01924-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical and histopathological outcome of cervical and chest MRI involving non-MRI-conditional cardiac pacemakers: a study using sheep models

AIM

To examine the clinical and histopathological consequences of MRI in sheep implanted with non-MRI-conditional cardiac pacemakers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Under general anesthesia, active fixation leads of two dual-chamber, non-MRI-conditional cardiac pacemakers (St. Jude Medical and Medtronic) were implanted either at the right ventricular apex or at the right atrium of two male sheep and connected to the V and A channels of the pacemakers, respectively. The generators were placed in cervical subcutaneous pockets. On day 5, both sheep underwent 1.5 T cervical and chest MRI with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. Obtained sequences were T1-weighted (T1W), T2-weighted (T2W), T2-gradient echo and diffusion weighted (DW). The employed modes were OVO, VOO and VVI for one sheep and OAO, AOO and AAI for the other (unipolar and bipolar configuration of pacing and sensing for both). Battery impedance, pacing lead impedance, intrinsic amplitude and capture thresholds were checked at baseline and after each sequence, as well as 48 h after imaging. Histopathological examination of the cardiac tissue around the lead tip was performed 4 weeks post-imaging.

RESULTS

No significant changes in device position or configuration were observed during or after MRI. Clinical outcome was uneventful in both sheep. Minor inflammatory and necrotic changes were reported after histopathological examination of the cardiac tissue around the lead tip.

CONCLUSION

1.5 T MRI of two implanted non-MRI-conditional pacemakers was found safe in terms of device configuration and stability, clinical outcome and cardiac tissue histopathological findings.

Clinical safety of ProMRI implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems during head and lower lumbar magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has long been contraindicated in patients with implanted pacemakers, defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices due to the risk of adverse effects through electromagnetic interference. Since many recipients of these devices will have a lifetime indication for an MRI scan, the implantable systems should be developed as ‘MRI-conditional’ (be safe for the MRI environment under predefined conditions). We evaluated the clinical safety of several Biotronik ProMRI (‘MRI-conditional’) defibrillator and CRT systems during head and lower lumbar MRI scans at 1.5 Tesla. The study enrolled 194 patients at 22 sites in Australia, Canada, and Europe. At ≥9 weeks after device implantation, predefined, non-diagnostic, specific absorption rate (SAR)-intensive head and lower lumbar MRI scans (total ≈30 minutes per patient) were performed in 146 patients that fulfilled pre-procedure criteria. Three primary endpoints were evaluated: freedom from serious adverse device effects (SADEs) related to MRI and defibrillator/CRT (leading to death, hospitalisation, life-threatening condition, or potentially requiring implanted system revision or replacement), pacing threshold increase, and sensing amplitude decrease, all at the 1-month post-MRI clinical visit. No MRI-related SADE occurred. Lead values remained stable, measured in clinic and monitored daily by the manufacturer home monitoring technology.

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

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

Artefacts in 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCP) undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. The aim of this prospective, single-center, observational study was to evaluate artefacts on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images in patients with LCP.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with Micra™ LCP, implanted at least 6 weeks prior to CMR scan, were enrolled and underwent either 1.5 Tesla or 3 Tesla CMR imaging. Artefacts were categorized into grade 1 (excellent image quality), grade 2 (good), grade 3 (poor) and grade 4 (non-diagnostic) for each myocardial segment. One patient was excluded because of an incomplete CMR investigation due to claustrophobia.

RESULTS

LCP caused an arc-shaped artefact (0.99 ± 0.16 cm2) at the right ventricular (RV) apex. Of 224 analyzed myocardial segments of the left ventricle (LV) 158 (70.5%) were affected by grade 1, 27 (12.1%) by grade 2, 17 (7.6%) by grade 3 and 22 (9.8%) by grade 4 artefacts. The artefact burden of grade 3 and 4 artefacts was significantly higher in the 3 Tesla group (3 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla: 3.7 ± 1.6 vs 1.9 ± 1.4 myocardial segments per patient, p = 0.03). A high artefact burden was particularly observed in the mid anteroseptal, inferoseptal and apical septal myocardial segments of the LV and in the mid and apical segments of the RV. Quantification of LV function and assessment of valves were feasible in all patients. We did not observe any clinical or device-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

CMR imaging in patients with LCP is feasible with excellent to good image quality in the majority of LV segments. The artefact burden is comparable small allowing an accurate evaluation of LV function, cardiac structures and valves. However, artefacts in the mid anteroseptal, inferoseptal and apical septal myocardial segments of the LV due to the LCP may impair or even exclude diagnostic evaluation of these segments. Artefacts on CMR images may be reduced by the use of 1.5 Tesla CMR scanners.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

KEY POINTS

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