Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a single-center prospective study

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have traditionally been a contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recent studies suggest that MRI can be conducted safely in select patients with pacemakers (PPMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We sought to determine the safety of MRI in patients with CIEDs, using a protocol for patient selection and device programming.

Methods

This is a prospective, single-center study. Patients with a PPM or ICD and a clinical indication for MRI were considered. Exclusion criteria included newly implanted devices (<4 weeks), PPMs manufactured before 1996 and ICDs before 2000, epicardial and abandoned leads, and pacemaker-dependent ICD patients. Pacemaker-dependent PPM patients were programmed to asynchronous pacing. Tachycardia detection/therapies were disabled for ICDs. Devices were interrogated pre- and post-scan, and at follow-up 1–6 weeks later. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) was not tested post-scan. Patients were followed to monitor device therapies.

Results

Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent 293 scans. Devices included 170 (70.6%) PPMs and 71 (29.5%) ICDs. Thirteen (4.4%) scans were aborted mainly due to subjective complaints or artifact on scout cardiac imaging. Post-scan and follow-up interrogation demonstrated no changes in device parameters requiring reprogramming or revision. Over long-term follow-up (median, 354 days [IQR 65–629]), nine ICD patients had appropriate shocks (median, 3 [IQR 1–8]). One had four inappropriate shocks for atrial fibrillation. All tachyarrhythmias meeting criteria for defibrillation were successfully terminated.

Conclusions

MRI can be conducted safely in patients with CIEDs when done in a protocoled manner with appropriate supervision. DFT testing after MRI may not be necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chang AE, Matory YL, Dwyer AJ, Hill SC, Girton ME, Steinberg SM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography in the evaluation of soft tissue tumors of the extremities. Ann Surg. 1987;205(4):340–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ridgway JP. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance physics for clinicians: part I. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Off J Soc Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:71.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Levine GN, Gomes AS, Arai AE, Bluemke DA, Flamm SD, Kanal E, et al. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation. 2007;116(24):2878–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Babouri A, Hedjeidj A. In vitro investigation of eddy current effect on pacemaker operation generated by low frequency magnetic field. Conf Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Conf. 2007;2007:5684–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Achenbach S, Moshage W, Diem B, Bieberle T, Schibgilla V, Bachmann K. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging on cardiac pacemakers and electrodes. Am Heart J. 1997;134(3):467–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Luechinger R, Duru F, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P, Candinas R. Force and torque effects of a 1.5-tesla MRI scanner on cardiac pacemakers and ICDs. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2001;24(2):199–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Luechinger R, Zeijlemaker VA, Pedersen EM, Mortensen P, Falk E, Duru F, et al. In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(4):376–83. discussion 325–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gimbel JR, Johnson D, Levine PA, Wilkoff BL. Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 1996;19(6):913–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sommer T, Lauck G, Schimpf R, von Smekal A, Wolke S, Block W, et al. MRI in patients with cardiac pacemakers: in vitro and in vivo evaluation at 0.5 tesla. RöFo Fortschritte Auf Dem Geb Röntgenstrahlen Nukl. 1998;168(1):36–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sommer T, Vahlhaus C, Lauck G, von Smekal A, Reinke M, Hofer U, et al. MR imaging and cardiac pacemakers: in-vitro evaluation and in-vivo studies in 51 patients at 0.5 T. Radiology. 2000;215(3):869–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vahlhaus C, Sommer T, Lewalter T, Schimpf R, Schumacher B, Jung W, et al. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by magnetic resonance imaging: are there irreversible changes at 0.5 tesla? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2001;24(4 Pt 1):489–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin ET, Coman JA, Shellock FG, Pulling CC, Fair R, Jenkins K. Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(7):1315–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Del Ojo JL, Moya F, Villalba J, Sanz O, Pavón R, Garcia D, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging safe in cardiac pacemaker recipients? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2005;28(4):274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gimbel JR, Kanal E, Schwartz KM, Wilkoff BL. Outcome of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2005;28(4):270–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sommer T, Naehle CP, Yang A, Zeijlemaker V, Hackenbroch M, Schmiedel A, et al. Strategy for safe performance of extrathoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 tesla in the presence of cardiac pacemakers in non-pacemaker-dependent patients: a prospective study with 115 examinations. Circulation. 2006;114(12):1285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M, Lucca J. Cardiac biomarkers in patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators undergoing an MRI scan. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2008;31(10):1241–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Naehle CP, Zeijlemaker V, Thomas D, Meyer C, Strach K, Fimmers R, et al. Evaluation of cumulative effects of MR imaging on pacemaker systems at 1.5 tesla. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2009;32(12):1526–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Naehle CP, Strach K, Thomas D, Meyer C, Linhart M, Bitaraf S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5-T in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(6):549–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burke PT, Ghanbari H, Alexander PB, Shaw MK, Daccarett M, Machado C. A protocol for patients with cardiovascular implantable devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): should defibrillation threshold testing be performed post-(MRI). J Interv Card Electrophysiol Int J Arrhythm Pacing. 2010;28(1):59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Halshtok O, Goitein O, Abu Sham’a R, Granit H, Glikson M, Konen E. Pacemakers and magnetic resonance imaging: no longer an absolute contraindication when scanned correctly. Isr Med Assoc J IMAJ. 2010;12(7):391–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M, Lucca J. Magnetic resonance imaging of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without specific absorption rate restrictions. Eur Eur Pacing Arrhythm Card Electrophysiol J Work Groups Card Pacing Arrhythm Card Cell Electrophysiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2010;12(7):947–51.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Strach K, Naehle CP, Mühlsteffen A, Hinz M, Bernstein A, Thomas D, et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: increased safety for pacemaker patients? Eur Eur Pacing Arrhythm Card Electrophysiol J Work Groups Card Pacing Arrhythm Card Cell Electrophysiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2010;12(7):952–60.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Naehle CP, Kreuz J, Strach K, Schwab JO, Pingel S, Luechinger R, et al. Safety, feasibility, and diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverters/defibrillators at 1.5 T. Am Heart J. 2011;161(6):1096–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nazarian S, Hansford R, Roguin A, Goldsher D, Zviman MM, Lardo AC, et al. A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(7):415–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD, Anderson JL, Arshad A, Biederman RWW, et al. Assessing the risks associated with MRI in patients with a pacemaker or defibrillator. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(8):755–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Langman DA, Goldberg IB, Finn JP, Ennis DB. Pacemaker lead tip heating in abandoned and pacemaker-attached leads at 1.5 tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2011;33(2):426–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins JV, Gard JJ, Sheldon SH, Espinosa RE, Wood CP, Felmlee JP, et al. Safety and outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with abandoned pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2014;37(10):1284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Healey JS, Hohnloser SH, Glikson M, Neuzner J, Viñolas X, Mabo P, et al. The rationale and design of the Shockless IMPLant evaluation (SIMPLE) trial: a randomized, controlled trial of defibrillation testing at the time of defibrillator implantation. Am Heart J. 2012;164(2):146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sweeney MO. Antitachycardia pacing for ventricular tachycardia using implantable cardioverter defibrillators: pacing. Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2004;27(9):1292–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fisher JD, Mehra R, Furman S. Termination of ventricular tachycardia with bursts of rapid ventricular pacing. Am J Cardiol. 1978;41(1):94–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bertomeu-González V, Moreno-Arribas J, Castillo-Castillo J, Martínez-Ferrer J, Viñolas X, Rodríguez A, et al. Etiology and programming effects on shock efficacy in ICD recipients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. 2016;39(1):73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF. Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2007;26(5):1322–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Mrinal Yadava, Matthew Nugent, Angela Krebsbach, Jessica Minnier, Peter Jessel & Charles A. Henrikson

  2. Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Peter Jessel

Authors
  1. Mrinal Yadava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Nugent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Krebsbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jessica Minnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Jessel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Charles A. Henrikson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles A. Henrikson.

Ethics declarations

Funding sources

No external funding source.

Conflict of interest

Mrinal Yadava has received travel support from St. Jude and Biotronik. Charles A. Henrikson has received fellowship support from Boston Scientific, St. Jude, and Medtronic. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Prior studies of clinical MRI in patients with CIEDs
Full size table
Table 4 Devices studied with model numbers
Full size table
Table 5 Percentage change in median device parameters on post-scan and follow-up interrogation
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yadava, M., Nugent, M., Krebsbach, A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a single-center prospective study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 50, 95–104 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-017-0262-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-017-0262-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation