Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MRI in patients with cardiac devices

  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the advances of MRI and cardiovascular technology, it is becoming increasingly likely that a patient with a cardiovascular device will be a candidate for an MRI procedure. However, many cardiac devices are currently considered to be contraindicated in the MR environment. This may prove to be a significant public health problem as many patients in need of MRI are denied the procedure because of the presence of a cardiovascular device. However, research studies have shown that with proper precautions and technique patients with cardiac devices can undergo successful MRI safely on the current platforms.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Kalin R, Stanton MS: Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005, 28:326–328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. United States Food and Drug Administration. A Primer on Medical Device Interactions with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/primerf6.html. Accessed October 26, 2006.

  3. Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, Designation: F2503-05. Standard Practice for Marking Medical Devices and Other Items for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pavlicek W, Geisinger M, Castle L, et al.: The effects of nuclear magnetic resonance on patients with cardiac pacemakers. Radiology 1983, 174:149–153.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fetter J, Aram G, Holmes D, et al.: The effects of nuclear magnetic resonance imagers on external and implantable pulse generators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1984, 7:720–727.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lauck G, von Smekal A, Wolke S, et al.: Effects of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging on cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995, 18:1549–1555.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Luechinger R, Duru F, Zeijlemaker VA, et al.: Pacemaker reed switch behavior in 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging units: are reed switches always closed in strong magnetic fields? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002, 25:1419–1423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Erlebacher JA, Cahill PT, Panizzo F, et al.: Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on DDD pacemakers. Am J Cardiol 1986, 57:437–440.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Achenbach S, Moshage W, Diem B, et al.: Effects of magnetic resonance imaging on cardiac pacemakers and electrodes. Am Heart J 1997, 134:467–473.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sommer T, Valhaus C, Lauck G, et al.: MR imaging and cardiac pacemakers: in vitro evaluation and in vivo studies in 51 patients at 1.5 T. Radiology 2000, 215:869–879.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shellock FG, O’Neil MO, Ivans V, et al.: Cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators are unaffected by operation of an extremity MR imaging system. Am J Roentgenol 1999, 172:165–170.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Holmes DR, Hayes DL, Gray JE, et al.: The effects of magnetic resonance imaging on implantable pulse generators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1986, 9:360–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayes DL, Holmes DR, Gray JE, et al.: Effect of 1.5 Tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987, 10:782–786.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Peden CJ, Collins AG, Butson PC, et al.: Induction of microcurrents in critically ill patients in magnetic resonance systems. Crit Care Med 1993, 21:1923–1928.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Roguin A, Zviman MM, Meininger GR et al.: Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T. Circulation 2004, 110:475–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Luechinger R, Zeijlemaker VA, Pedersen EM et al.: In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J 2005, 26:376–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nahrendorf M, Hiller KH, Hu K, et al.: Pacing in high field cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004, 27:671–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Valhaus C, Sommer T, Lewalter T, et al.: Interference with cardiac pacemakers by magnetic resonance imaging: are there irreversible changes at 0.5 Tesla? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001, 24:489–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garcia-Bolao I, Albaladejo V, Benito A, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a dual-chamber pacemaker. Acta Cardiol 1998, 1:33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sommer T, Naehle CP, Yang A, et al.: Strategy for safe performance of extrathoracic MRI at 1.5 Tesla in the presence of cardiac pacemakers in non-pacemaker dependent patients. Circulation 2006, 114:1285–1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goldshear D, Amikam S, Boulos M, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging for patients with permanent pacemakers: initial clinical experience. IMAJ 2006, 8:91–94.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Del Ojo JL, Villalba J, Sanz O, et al.: Is magnetic resonance imaging safe in cardiac pacemaker recipients? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005, 28:274–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Martin ET, Coman JC, Shellock FG, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-T. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 43:1315–1324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nazarian S, Roguin A, Zviman MM, et al.: 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 2006, 114:1277–1284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gimbel JR, Johnson D, Levine PA, et al.: Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996, 19:913–919.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Irnich W, Irnich B, Bartsch C, et al.: Do we need pacemakers resistant to magnetic resonance imaging? Europace 2005, 7:353–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fontaine JM, Mohamed FB, Gottlieb C, et al.: Rapid ventricular pacing in a pacemaker patient undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998, 21:1336–1339.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Luechinger R, Duru F, Scheidegger MB, et al.: Force and torque effects of a 1.5-Tesla MRI scanner on cardiac pacemakers and ICDs. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001, 24:199–205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fiek M, Remp T, Reithmann C, et al.: Complete loss of ICD programmability after magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004, 27:1002–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anfinsen O, Bernsten RF, Aass H, et al.: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction during and after magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002, 25:1400–1402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sandler DA, Coman JA, Auerbach EG, Martin ET: 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, 2006.

  32. Gimbel JR, Kanal E, Schwartz KM, et al.: Outcome of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005, 28:270–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Murphy KJ, Cohan RH, Ellis JH: MR imaging in patients with epicardial pacemaker wires. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 172:727–728.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hartnell GG, Spence L, Hughes LA, et al.: Safety of MR imaging in patients who have retained metallic materials after cardiac surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 168:1157–1159.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shellock FG, Riedinger MS: Reproducibility and accuracy of using room-temperature vs. ice-temperature injectate for thermodilution cardiac output determination. Heart Lung 1983, 12:175–176.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Shellock FG, Morisoli SM: Ex vivo evaluation of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts produced by heart valve prostheses exposed to a 1.5-T MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994, 4:756–758.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Edwards MB, Taylor KM, Shellock FG: Prosthetic heart valves: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000, 12:363–369.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Shellock FG: Prosthetic heart valves and annuloplasty rings: assessment of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2001, 3:317–324.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Soulen RL, Budinger TF, Higgins CB: Magnetic resonance imaging of prosthetic heart valves. Radiology 1985, 154:705–707.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Edwards MB, Draper ER, Hand JW, et al.: Mechanical testing of human cardiac tissue: some implications for MRI safety. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2005, 7:835–840.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pruefer D, Kalden P, Schreiber W, et al.: In vitro investigation of prosthetic heart valves in magnetic resonance imaging: evaluation of potential hazards. J Heart Valve Dis 2001, 10:410–414.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Randall PA, Kohman LJ, Scalzetti EM, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of prosthetic cardiac valves in vitro and in vivo. Am J Cardiol 1988, 62:973–976.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Condon B, Hadley DM: Potential MR hazard to patients with metallic heart valves: the Lenz effect. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000, 12:171–176.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Shellock FG: Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002, 16:721–732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shellock FG: Reference Manual for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Implants, and Devices: 2006 Edition. Los Angeles: Biomedical Research Publishing Group; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rajappan K, Melina G, Bellenger NG, et al.: Evaluation of left ventricular function and mass after Medtronic Freestyle versus homograft aortic root replacement using cardio-vascular magnetic resonance. J Heart Valve Dis 2002, 11:60–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vliegen HW, van Straten A, de Roos A, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging to assess the hemodynamic effects of pulmonary valve replacement in adults late after repair of Tetralogy of Fallot. Circulation 2002, 106:1703–1707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Khambadkone S, Coats L, Taylor A, et al.: Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation in humans: results in 59 consecutive patients. Circulation 2005, 112:1189–1197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Scott NA, Pettigrew RI: Absence of movement of coronary stents after placement in a magnetic resonance imaging field. Am J Cardiol 1994, 73:900–901.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Friedrich MG, Strohm O, Kivelitz D et al.: Behavior of implantable coronary stents during magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 1999, 2:217–222.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shellock FG, Shellock VJ: Metallic stents: evaluation of MR imaging safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 173:543–547.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Hug J, Nagel E, Bornstedt A, et al.: Coronary arterial stents: safety and artifacts during MR imaging. Radiology 2000, 216:781–787.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Shellock FG: Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002, 16:721–732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Shellock FG, Forder JR: Drug eluting coronary stent: in vitro evaluation of magnet resonance safety at 3 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2005, 7:415–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shellock FG: MR safety at 3-Tesla: bare metal and drug eluting coronary artery stents. Signals 2005, 53:26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Syed MA, Carlson K, Murphy M, et al.: Long-term safety of cariac magnetic resonance imaging in the first few days after bare-metal stent implantation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006, 24:1056–1061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Patel M, Albert TS, Kandzari DE, et al.: Acute myocardial infarction: Safety of cardiac MR imaging after percutaneous revascularization with stents. Radiology 2006, 240:674–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shellock FG, Morisoli SM: Ex vivo evaluation of ferromagnetism and artifacts of cardiac occluders exposed to a 1.5-T MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994, 4:213–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bock M, Mohrs OK, Voigtlaender T, et al.: MRI safety aspects and artifacts of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale occluders at 1.5 Tesla: a phantom study. Rofo 2006, 178:272–277.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Shellock FG, Valencerina S: Septal repair implants: evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging safety at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging 2005, 23:1021–1025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Shellock FG, Tkach JA, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk TJ: Cardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional (“long-bore”) and “short-bore” 1.5-and 3.0-Tesla MR systems. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2003, 5:387–397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gimbel JR, Zarghami J, Machado C, Wilkoff BL: Safe scanning, but frequent artifacts mimicking bradycardia and tachycardia during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with an implantable loop recorder (ILR). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2005, 10:404–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Anfinsen O, Berntsen RF, Aass H, et al.: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction during and after magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002, 25:1400–1402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wollmann C, Grude M, Tombach B, et al.: Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on a patient with an ICD. PACE 2005, 28:339–342.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Roguin A, Donahue JK, Bomma CS, et al.: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electro Physiol 2005, 28:336–338.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Gimbel JR, Kanal E, Schwartz KM, et al.: Outcome of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). PACE 2005, 28:270–273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Nemec J: Suppression of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy during magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Electrophys 2006, 17:444–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Iberer F, Justich E, Stenzl W, et al.: Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of a patient with implanted transvenous pacemaker. Herz 1987, 7:196–199.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Achenbach S, Moshage W, Kuhn I, et al.: Kernspintomagraphie bei einem patienten mit zweikammerschrittmachersystem. Z Kardiol 1995, 87(Suppl):119.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Alagona P, Toole JC, Maniscalco BS, et al.: Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a DDD pacemaker [letter]. PACE 1989, 12:619.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Inbar S, Larson J, Burt T, et al.: Case report: nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a pacemaker. Am J Med Sci 1993, 3:174–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Johnson D: Magnetic resonance imaging effects and considerations with permanent cardiac pacemakers [abstract]. PACE 1994, 17(Suppl):772.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sommer T, Lauck G, Schimpf R, et al.: MRI in patients with cardiac pacemakers: in vitro and in vivo evaluation at 0.5 Tesla. Rofo 1998, 168:36–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Pennell DJ: Cardiac magnetic resonance with a pacemaker in situ: can it be done [abstract]? J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 1999, 1:72.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Juratli N, Sparker J, Gimbel JR, et al.: Strategies for the safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging in selected pacemaker patients [abstract]. Circulation 2001, 104:II638–II639.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Schmiedel A, Hackenbroch M, Reinke M, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain at 1.5 tesla in patients with cardiac pacemakers: can it be done [abstract]? J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2002, 4:39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Maldonado JG, Pereira ME, Albuquerque KR et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a pacemaker. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia 2005, 84:428–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Goldsher D, Amikam S, Boulos M, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging for patients with permanent pacemakers: initial clinical experience. IMAJ 2006, 8:91–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Oklahoma Heart Institute, 9228 S. Mingo Road, Tulsa, OK, 74133, USA

    Edward T. Martin MD & David A. Sandler MD

Authors
  1. Edward T. Martin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Sandler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward T. Martin MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, E.T., Sandler, D.A. MRI in patients with cardiac devices. Curr Cardiol Rep 9, 63–71 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-007-0012-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-007-0012-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation