MRI-conditional pacemakers: current perspectives - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

MRI-conditional pacemakers: current perspectives

António M Ferreira et al. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: MRI; MRI-conditional devices; magnetic resonance imaging; pacemakers; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Balanced steady-state free precession (b-SSFP) cine images of the heart in a patient with an implanted magnetic resonance imaging-conditional pacemaker. Notes: Note the susceptibility artifacts from the pulse generator in left ventricular 2-chamber view (A) and from the right ventricular lead in short-axis view (B). Despite being clearly apparent, these artifacts don’t usually hinder diagnostic interpretation, except when the region of interest is in the proximity of the pacemaker generator.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. IMV Medical Information Division, Inc. IMV Benchmark Report MR. 2008.
    1. IMV Medical Information Division, Inc. IMV Benchmark Report MR 2012. [Accessed April 17, 2014]. Available from: http://www.imvinfo.com/index.asp?sec=mkt&sub=omkt&pag=def&pid=90631.
    1. Sutton R, Kanal E, Wilkoff BL, et al. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of patients with a new Medtronic EnRhythm MRI SureScan pacing system: clinical study design. Trials. 2008;9:68. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1540–1545. - PubMed
    1. Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2009 – a World Society of Arrhythmia’s project. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011;34:1013–1027. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources