Advertisement

A protocol for patients with cardiovascular implantable devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): should defibrillation threshold testing be performed post-(MRI)

  • Peter Thomas Burke
  • Hamid Ghanbari
  • Patrick B. Alexander
  • Michael K. Shaw
  • Marcos Daccarett
  • Christian MachadoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Recent data suggests MRI as a relative rather than absolute contraindication in CIED patients. Recently, the American Heart Association has recommended defibrillation threshold testing (DFTT) in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients undergoing MRI. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of a protocol for MRI in CIED patients, incorporating the new recommendations on DFTT.

Methods

Consecutive patients with CIED undergoing MRI were included. The protocol consisted of continuous monitoring during imaging, device interrogation pre- and post-MRI, reprogramming of the pacemaker to an asynchronous mode in pacemaker-dependent (PMD) patients and a non-tracking/sensing mode for non-PMD patients. All tachyarrhythmia therapies were disabled. Devices were interrogated for lead impedance, battery life, pacing, and sensing thresholds. All patients with ICD underwent DFTT/defibrillator safety margin testing (DSMT) post-MRI.

Results

A total of 92 MRI’s at 1.5 Tesla were performed in 38 patients. A total of 13 PMD patients, ten ICD patients, four cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) patients, and 11 non-PMD patients were scanned from four major manufacturers. No device circuitry damage, programming alterations, inappropriate shocks, failure to pace, or changes in sensing, pacing, or defibrillator thresholds were found on single or multiple MRI sessions.

Conclusions

Our protocol for MRI in CIED patients appears safe, feasible, and reproducible. This is irrespective of the type of CIED, pacemaker dependancy or multiple 24-h scanning sessions. Our protocol addresses early detection of potential complications and establishes a response system for potential device-related complications. Our observation suggests that routine DFTT/DSMT post-MRI may not be necessary.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging MRI Cardiac implantable electronic device CIED Pacemaker ICD Defibrillator threshold testing Defibrillation safety margin testing DSMT 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to specially thank the outstanding work of the Providence Hospital Heart Institute Pacemaker Clinic staff: Kim Bean, Michele Robinson and Amber Simms; Tim McElroy; the Providence Hospital Heart Institute Electrophysiology staff: Jessica Ottino, Jon Owings, Manu Seghal, Cathy Bell, Cordell Hastings, Midodrag Nedeljkovic, and Lisa Olson as well as the Providence Hospital Magnetic Resonance Imaging technicians and Department of Radiology.

References

  1. 1.
    Luechinger, R., Zeijlemaker, V. A., et al. (2005). In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging. European Heart Journal, 26, 376–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinski, S. L., Trohman, R. G., et al. (2002). Interference in implantable cardiac devices, part II (review). Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 25(10), 1496–1509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gimbel, R., Bailey, S., et al. (2005). Strategies for the safe magnetic resonance imaging of pacemaker-dependant patients. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 28, 1041–1046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin, E. T., Coman, J. A., et al. (2004). Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5 Tesla. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43, 1315–1324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roguin, A., Zviman, M., et al. (2004). Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic imaging safe. in vitro and in vivo assesment of safety and function at 1.5 T. Circulation, 110, 475–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derek, V. E. (2005). Is antitachycardia pacing a safe and efficacious alternative to shocks for fast ventricular tachyarrhythmia treatment? Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine, 2, 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin, E. T. (2005). Can cardiac pacemakers and magnetic resonance imaging systems co-exist? European Heart Journal, 26, 325–327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shellock, F., Fieno, D., et al. (2006). Cardiac pacemeaker: in vitro assesment at 1.5 T. American Heart Journal, 151, 436–443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gimbel, J. R. (2008). Magnetic resonance imaging of implantable cardiac rhythm Devicesat 3.0 Tesla. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 31, 795–801.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sierra, M., & Machado, C. (2008). Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implantable cardiac devices. Review in Cardiovascular Medicine, 9(4), 232–238.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levine, G., Gomes, A., et al. (2007). Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices. Circulation, 116, 2878–2891.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gimbel, J. R., Kanal, E., et al. (2005). Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in selected patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD). Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 28, 270–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roguin, A., Schwitter, J., Vahlhaus, C., Lombardi, M., Priori, S., & Sommer, T. (2008). ESC position paper—magnetic resonance imaging in individuals with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems. Europace, 10, 336–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gold, M., Breiter, D., & Hahn, S. (2003). Safety of a single successful conversion of ventricular fibrillation before the implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 26, 483–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins, S., Mann, D., Calkins, H., et al. (2005). One conversion of ventricular fibrillation is adequate for implantable cardioverter-debibrillator. An analysis from the low energy safety study (LESS). Heart Rhythm, 2, 117–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gimbel, J. R., & Kanal, E. (2004). Can patients with implantable pacemakers safely undergo magnetic resonance imaging? Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43, 1325–1327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rozner, M. A., Burton, A. W., & Kumar, A. (2005). Pacemaker complication during magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 45, 161–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shellock, F. G., O'Neil, M., et al. (1999). Cardiac pacemeakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators are unaffected by operation of extremity MR imaging system. American Journal of Roentgenology, 172, 165–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naehle, C. P., Zeijlemaker, V., Thomas, D., Meyer, C., Strach, K., Fimmers, R., et al. (2009). Evaluation of cumulative effects of MR imaging on pacemaker systems at 1.5 Tesla. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 32(12), 1526–1535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naehle, C. P., Meyer, C., Thomas, D., Remerie, S., Krautmacher, C., Litt, H., et al. (2008). Safety of brain 3-T MR imaging with transmit-receive head coil in patients with cardiac pacemakers: pilot prospective study with 51 examinations. Radiology, 249(3), 991–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naehle, C. P., Strach, K., Thomas, D., Meyer, C., Linhart, M., Bitaraf, S., et al. (2009). Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla in patients with implantable cardioverters/defibrillators. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 54(6), 549–555.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hayes, D. L., Holmes, D. R., Jr., et al. (1987). Effect of 1.5 Tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10(4), 782–786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holmes, D. R., Jr., Hayes, D. L., et al. (1986). The effects of magnetic resonance imaging on implantable pulse generators. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 9(3), 360–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luechinger, R., Duru, F., et al. (2001). Force and torque effects of a 1.5-Tesla MRI scanner on cardiac pacemakers and ICDs. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 24(2), 199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gimbel, J. R. (2008). The AHA scientific statement of MRI in patients with devices: neat, but incomplete. Unwise and unsupported. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 31(6), 649–651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coman, J. A., Martin, E. T., et al. (2004). Implantable cardiac defibrillator interactions with magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43, 138A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandler, D. A., Coman, J. A., et al. (2006). Magnetic resonance imaging of patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in a 1.5-Tesla magnet: A five-year experience. Heart Rhythm Society, 27th Annual Scientific Sessions, Boston, MA: May 17–20, 2006Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fiek, M., Remp, T., Reithmann, C., & Steinbeck, G. (2004). Complete loss of ICD programmability after magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 27, 1002–1004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glikson, M., Luria, D., et al. (2000). Are routine arrhythmia inductions necessary in patients with pectoral implantable cardioverter defibrillators? Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nazarian, S., Roguin, A., Zviman, M. M., Lardo, A. C., Dickfeld, T. L., Calkins, H., et al. (2006). Clinical utility and safety of a protocol for noncardiac and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable-cardioverter defibrillators at 1.5 Tesla. Circulation, 114, 1277–1284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Birnie, D., Tung, S., Simpson, C., Crystal, E., Exner, D., Ayala Paredes, F. A., et al. (2008). Complications associated with defibrillation threshold testing: the Canadian experience. Heart Rhythm, 5(3), 387–390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Thomas Burke
    • 1
  • Hamid Ghanbari
    • 1
  • Patrick B. Alexander
    • 1
  • Michael K. Shaw
    • 1
  • Marcos Daccarett
    • 1
  • Christian Machado
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Providence Heart Institute, Providence HospitalSouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations