Safety and outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with abandoned pacemaker and defibrillator leads

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.

Joint British Society consensus recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly a fundamental component of the diagnostic pathway across a range of conditions. Historically, the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) has been a contraindication for MRI, however, development of MR Conditional devices that can be scanned under strict protocols has facilitated the provision of MRI for patients. Additionally, there is growing safety data to support MR scanning in patients with CIEDs that do not have MR safety labelling or with MR Conditional CIEDs where certain conditions are not met, where the clinical justification is robust. This means that almost all patients with cardiac devices should now have the same access to MRI scanning in the National Health Service as the general population. Provision of MRI to patients with CIED, however, remains limited in the UK, with only half of units accepting scan requests even for patients with MR Conditional CIEDs. Service delivery requires specialist equipment and robust protocols to ensure patient safety and facilitate workflows, meanwhile demanding collaboration between healthcare professionals across many disciplines. This document provides consensus recommendations from across the relevant stakeholder professional bodies and patient groups to encourage provision of safe MRI for patients with CIEDs.

Abandoned Intracardiac Electrodes in an Oncological Patient

Cardiological and oncological patients comprise the majority of patients admitted to the emergency unit with chronic or acute conditions that are the dominant cause of death worldwide. However, electrotherapy and implantable devices (pacemakers and cardioverters) improve the prognosis of cardiological patients. We present the case report of a patient who, in the past, had a pacemaker implanted due to symptomatic sick sinus syndrome (SSS) without removing the two remaining leads. Echocardiography revealed severe tricuspid valve regurgitation. The tricuspid valve septal cusp was in a restricting position due to the two ventricular leads passing through the valve. A few years later, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. We present a 65-year-old female admitted to the department due to right ventricular failure. The patient manifested symptoms of right heart failure, predominated by ascites and lower extremity edema, despite increasing doses of diuretics. The patient underwent a mastectomy two years ago due to breast cancer and was qualified for thorax radiotherapy. A new pacemaker system was implanted in the right subclavian area as the pacemaker generator occupied the radiotherapy field. In the case of right ventricular lead removal and the need for pacing and resynchronization therapy, guidelines allow a coronary sinus for LV pacing to avoid passing the leads through the tricuspid valve. We facilitated this approach in our patient, suggesting that the percentage of ventricular pacing was very low.

Nachsorge und MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit implantierten kardialen Aggregaten

In den 2021 publizierten ESC-Leitlinien wird im Rahmen des Kapitels über die Aggregatnachsorge insbesondere die Bedeutung der Telemetrie hervorgehoben. Durch eine telemetrische Nachsorge sind wesentlich seltener Präsenznachsorgen notwendig bei gleichwertiger oder sogar verbesserter Sicherheit. Eine telemetrische Überwachung sollte daher bei allen Patienten mit CIED erwogen werden.

Die Leitlinien beschreiben detailliert die Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen von MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit CIED. Programmierempfehlungen für die verschiedenen Hersteller werden dargestellt. Unter Einhaltung entsprechender Sicherheitsstandards kann eine MRT auch ohne größeres Risiko bei Patienten mit nicht MRT-kompatiblen Systemen erfolgen.

Should they stay, or should they go: do we need to remove the old cardiac implantable electronic device if a new system is required on the contralateral side?

Background

Ipsilateral approach in patients requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision or upgrade may not be feasible, primarily due to vascular occlusion. If a new CIED is implanted on the contralateral side, a common practice is to explant the old CIED to avoid device interaction.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess a conservative approach of abandoning the old CIED after implanting a new contralateral device.

Methods

We used an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze postimplant chest radiographs to identify those with multiple CIEDs. Outcomes of interest included device interaction, abandoned CIED elective replacement indicator (ERI) behavior, subsequent programming changes, and explant of abandoned CIED. Theoretical risk of infection with removal of abandoned CIED was estimated using a validated scoring system.

Results

Among 12,045 patients, we identified 40 patients with multiple CIEDs. Occluded veins were the most common indication for contralateral implantation (n = 27 [67.5%]). Fifteen abandoned CIEDs reached ERI, with 4 reverting to VVI 65. One patient underwent explant due to device interaction, and 2 required device reprogramming. Of 32 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 8 (25%) had treated ventricular arrhythmia. There were no failed or inappropriate therapies due to interaction. Eighteen patients (45%) had hypothetical >1% annual risk of hospitalization for device infection if the abandoned CIED had been explanted.

Conclusion

In patients requiring new CIED implant on the contralateral side, abandoning the old device is feasible. This approach may reduce the risk of infection and concerns regarding abandoned leads and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Knowledge of ERI behavior is essential to avoid device interactions.

[ESC guidelines 2021 on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy : What's new?]

The new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy were presented together with the new ESC heart failure guidelines at the ESC congress in September. The new document includes detailed sections on patient evaluation and clinical assessment, implantation, minimizing complications and patient follow-up. The guidelines have been updated and expanded particularly on the approach to reflex syncope, the indications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the perioperative management. The indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are now in line with the simultaneously published ESC heart failure guidelines. New physiological forms of stimulation and leadless pacing are now included in the guidelines.

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.

Safety of MRI in patients with retained cardiac leads

Purpose

To evaluate the safety of MRI in patients with fragmented retained leads (FRLs) through numerical simulation and phantom experiments.

Methods

Electromagnetic and thermal simulations were performed to determine the worst‐case RF heating of 10 patient‐derived FRL models during MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T and at imaging landmarks corresponding to head, chest, and abdomen. RF heating measurements were performed in phantoms implanted with reconstructed FRL models that produced highest heating in numerical simulations. The potential for unintended tissue stimulation was assessed through a conservative estimation of the electric field induced in the tissue due to gradient‐induced voltages developed along the length of FRLs.

Results

In simulations under conservative approach, RF exposure at B₁⁺ ≤ 2 µT generated cumulative equivalent minutes (CEM)₄₃ < 40 at all imaging landmarks at both 1.5 T and 3 T, indicating no thermal damage for acquisition times (TAs) < 10 min. In experiments, the maximum temperature rise when FRLs were positioned at the location of maximum electric field exposure was measured to be 2.4°C at 3 T and 2.1°C at 1.5 T. Electric fields induced in the tissue due to gradient‐induced voltages remained below the threshold for cardiac tissue stimulation in all cases.

Conclusions

Simulation and experimental results indicate that patients with FRLs can be scanned safely at both 1.5 T and 3 T with most clinical pulse sequences.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Magnetic resonance imaging interactions with a sacral neuromodulation system

Aims

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has successfully treated patients with functional urinary and/or bowel disorders for more than two decades. Historically, patients with the InterStim system (Medtronic) were contraindicated for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans. In 2012, Medtronic obtained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for allowing 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI head scans. In September 2019, the Axonics System (Axonics) received FDA approval for 1.5 T full‐body MR Conditional labeling and then 3 T full‐body MR Conditional labeling in July 2020. In August 2020, Medtronic received 1.5 and 3 T full‐body MR Conditional labeling from the FDA for their new SNM systems (InterStim II and Micro devices with SureScan^TM leads). With the advancements in MRI technology and availability of full‐body MRI eligible SNM systems, it is important for physicians to better understand MRI safety for these systems.

Methods

This paper explains the fundamentals of MRI physics, its interactions with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs), the subsequent potential safety hazards with emphasis on radio frequency (RF)‐related safety, and the risks associated with “Off‐label” scans, including abandoned and broken leads.

Results

MRI guidelines provided by the AIMD device manufacturer should be followed to ensure MRI scan safety and avoid any unnecessary risk to patients.

Conclusions

MRI guidelines provided by the device manufacturer are the best resource for guidance for performing safe MRI scanning. Specific conditions should be fully understood and generalizations on MRI safety claims based on partial analysis or case studies should be avoided.

Magnetic resonance conditionality of abandoned leads from active implantable medical devices at 1.5 T

PURPOSE

During MR scans, abandoned leads from active implantable medical devices (AIMDs) can experience excessive heating at the lead tip, depending on the type of termination applied to the proximal contacts (proximal end treatment). The influence of different proximal end treatments (ie, [1] freely exposed in the tissue, [2] terminated with metal in contact with the tissue, or [3] capped with plastic, and thereby fully insulated, on the RF-induced lead-tip heating) are studied. A technique to ensure that MR Conditional AIMD leads remain MR Conditional even when abandoned is recommended.

METHODS

Abandoned leads from three MR Conditional AIMDs ([1] a sacral neuromodulation system, [2] a cardiac rhythm management pacemaker system, and [3] a deep brain stimulator system) were investigated in this study. The computational lead models (ie, the transfer functions) for different proximal end treatments were measured and used to assess the in vivo lead-tip heating for four virtual human models (FATS, Duke, Ella, and Billie) and compared with the lead-tip heating of the complete MR Conditional AIMD system.

RESULT

The average and maximum lead-tip heating for abandoned leads proximally capped with metal is always lower than that from the complete AIMD system. Abandoned leads proximally insulated could lead to an average in vivo temperature rise up to 3.5 times higher than that from the complete AIMD system.

CONCLUSION

For the three investigated AIMDs under 1.5T MR scanning, our results indicate that RF-induced lead-tip heating of abandoned leads strongly depends on the proximal lead termination. A metallic cap applied to the proximal termination of the tested leads could significantly reduce the RF-induced lead-tip heating.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Radiofrequency-induced heating of broken and abandoned implant leads during magnetic resonance examinations

Purpose

The risks of RF‐induced heating of active implantable medical device (AIMD) leads during MR examinations must be well understood and realistically assessed. In this study, we evaluate the potential additional risks of broken and abandoned (cut) leads.

Methods

First, we defined a generic AIMD with a metallic implantable pulse generator (IPG) and a 100‐cm long lead containing 1 or 2 wires. Next, we numerically estimated the deposited in vitro lead‐tip power for an intact lead, as well as with wire breaks placed at 10 cm intervals. We studied the effect of the break size (wire gap width), as well as the presence of an intact wire parallel to the broken wire, and experimentally validated the numeric results for the configurations with maximum deposited in vitro lead‐tip power. Finally, we performed a Tier 3 assessment of the deposited in vivo lead‐tip power for the intact and broken lead in 4 high resolution virtual population anatomic models for over 54,000 MR examination scenarios.

Results

The enhancement of the deposited lead‐tip power for the broken leads, compared to the intact lead, reached 30‐fold in isoelectric exposure, and 16‐fold in realistic clinical exposures. The presence of a nearby intact wire, or even a nearby broken wire, reduced this enhancement factor to <7‐fold over the intact lead.

Conclusion

Broken and abandoned leads can pose increased risk of RF‐induced lead‐tip heating to patients undergoing MR examinations. The potential enhancement of deposited in vivo lead‐tip power depends on location and type of the wire break, lead design, and clinical routing of the lead, and should be carefully considered when performing risk assessment for MR examinations and MR conditional labeling.

2021 Update on Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Joint Statement From Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often considered the gold-standard test for characterizing cardiac as well as noncardiac structure and function. However, many patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and/or severe renal dysfunction are unable to undergo this test because of safety concerns. In the past 10 years, newer-generation CIEDs and gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) as well as coordinated care between imaging and heart rhythm device teams have mitigated risk to patients and improved access to MRI at many hospitals. The purpose of this statement is to review published data on safety of MRI in patients with conditional and nonconditional CIEDs in addition to patient risks from older and newer GBCAs. This statement was developed through multidisciplinary collaboration of pan-Canadian experts after a relevant and independent literature search by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. All recommendations align with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Key recommendations include: (1) the development of standardized protocols for patients with a CIED undergoing MRI; (2) patients with MRI nonconditional pacemakers and pacemaker dependency should be programmed to asynchronous mode and those with MRI nonconditional transvenous defibrillators should have tachycardia therapies turned off during the scan; and (3) macrocyclic or newer linear GBCAs should be used in preference to older GBCAs because of their better safety profile in patients at higher risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.

Feasibility of MRI in patients with non-Pacemaker/Defibrillator metallic devices and abandoned leads

Objective

To evaluate feasibility of MRI in patients with non-pacemaker (PM)/ Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) metallic devices and abandoned leads.

Background

Relative safety of MRI performed using specified protocol has been established in MR non-conditional PM/ICDs. With limited safety data, many non-PM/ICD metallic devices and abandoned leads continue to be a contraindication for MRI.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with extra-cardiac devices, non-programmable cardiac devices, and abandoned leads, who underwent MRI (GE 1.5 Tesla, WI) at a single tertiary care center over a span of 13 years. Scan protocol was designed to maintain specific absorption rate (SAR) < 4.0 W/kg and scan time < 60 minutes.

Results

The cohort comprised 127 MRI exams representing 94 patients, with 13 patients having two or more scans. The devices consisted of: 23 vagal nerve stimulators (VNS), 22 implantable loop recorders, 16 spinal stimulators, 5 peripheral nerve stimulators, 3 bladder stimulators, 2 deep brain stimulators, 1 gastric stimulator, 1 bone stimulator, 1 WATCHMAN device, 22 abandoned PM/lCD leads and 1 VNS lead. There was no immediate (peri-MRI exam) morbidity or mortality. Patients did not report any discomfort, palpitations, heating, or sensation of device migration during the exam. Local follow-up data was available in 65% (100% for thoracic imaging) with a mean of 190±475 days (median 13 days). No device malfunction reported during follow-up.

Conclusions

With appropriate precautions, MRI is feasible in patients with extracardiac devices, nonprogrammable cardiac devices, and abandoned leads.

2020 MR Safety for Cardiac Devices: An Update for Radiologists

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a unique and powerful diagnostic tool that provides images without ionizing radiation and, at times, can be the only modality to properly assess and diagnose some pathologies. Although many patients will need an MRI in their lifetime, many of them are still being unjustly denied access to it due to what were once considered absolute contraindications, including MR nonconditional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. However, there are a number of large studies that have recently demonstrated that MRI can safely be performed in these patients under certain conditions. In addition, there are an increasing number of novel cardiac devices implanted in patients who may require an MRI. Radiologists need to familiarize themselves with these devices, identify which patients with these devices can safely undergo MRI, and under which conditions. In this article, we will review the current literature on MR safety and cardiac devices, elaborate on how to safely image patients with cardiac devices, and share the expertise of our tertiary cardiac institute.

Safety and Clinical Impact of MRI in Patients with Non-MRI-conditional Cardiac Devices

Purpose

To explore the safety and clinical utility of MRI in participants with non-MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices, by establishing the Patient Registry of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Approved DEvices (PROMeNADe).

Materials and Methods

From September 2015 to June 2019, 532 participants (211 women) with a mean age of 69 years ± 14 (standard deviation) were enrolled prospectively in the PROMeNADe registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081364) and underwent a total of 608 MRI examinations (61 cardiac MRI examinations). All participants had device interrogations performed before and after each MRI. Pacemaker-dependent patients received asynchronous pacing. Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) had tachycardia therapies disabled during the MRI. An electrophysiology nurse monitored participants for any hemodynamic or rhythm abnormalities. Referring physicians were surveyed regarding the clinical utility of the MRI. Standard descriptive analyses included summary statistics with percentages and means.

Results

Cardiac devices included pacemakers (46%), ICDs (30%), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacemakers (4%), and CRT defibrillators (17%), as well as abandoned leads (2%). Pacemaker-dependent patients comprised 27% of all MRI examinations. There were no patient- or device-related complications. Clinical utility surveys of MRI examinations were completed by 150 physicians. According to the survey responses, these MRI examinations changed the suspected diagnosis 25% of the time and changed suspected prognosis in 26% of participants, with planned medical or surgical treatment being changed 42% of the time.

Conclusion

This registry demonstrates that MRI examinations, including thoracic MRI examinations, can be performed safely in patients who have non-MRI-conditional devices, in pacemaker-dependent patients with ICDs, and in patients with abandoned leads. These MRI examinations can have a substantial impact on patient care, justifying the extensive resources used to perform them.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020See also the commentary by Peshock in this issue.

Joint Position Paper of the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology (SFC) and the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV) on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the reference imaging for the management of a large number of diseases. The number of MR examinations increases every year, simultaneously with the number of patients receiving a cardiac electronic implantable device (CEID). A CEID was considered an absolute contraindication for MRI for years. The progressive replacement of conventional pacemakers and defibrillators by MR-conditional CEIDs and recent data on the safety of MRI in patients with "MR-nonconditional" CEIDs have progressively increased the demand for MRI in patients with a CEID. However, some risks are associated with MRI in CEID carriers, even with "MR-conditional" devices because these devices are not "MR-safe". A specific programing of the device in "MR-mode" and monitoring patients during MRI remain mandatory for all patients with a CEID. A standardized patient workflow based on an institutional protocol should be established in each institution performing such examinations. This joint position paper of the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology and the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV) describes the effect and risks associated with MRI in CEID carriers. We propose recommendations for patient workflow and monitoring and CEID programming in MR-conditional, "MR-conditional nonguaranteed" and MR-nonconditional devices.

Prospective evaluation of the utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with non-MRI-conditional pacemakers and defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with legacy cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in situ is likely underutilized. We hypothesized the clinical benefit of MRI would outweigh the risks in legacy CIED patients.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study that evaluated and classified the utility of MRI using a prospectively maintained database. The outcomes were classified as aiding in diagnosis, treatment, or both for the patients attributable to the MRI. We then assessed the incidence of adverse effects (AE) when the MRI was performed.

RESULTS

In 668, MRIs performed on 479 patients, only 13 (1.9%) MRIs did not aid in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient. Power-on reset events without clinical sequelae in three scans (0.45%) were the only AE. The probability of an adverse event happening without any benefit from the MRI scan was 1.1 × 10^-4 . A maximum benefit in diagnosis using MRI was obtained in ruling out space-occupying lesions (121/185 scans, 65.4%). Scans performed in patients for elucidating answers to queries in treatment were most frequently done for disease staging at long term follow-up (167/470 scans, 35.5%). Conservative treatment (184/470 scans, 39%) followed by medication changes (153/470 scans, 28.7%) were the most common treatment decisions made.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of MRI in patients with non-MRI-conditional CIEDs far outweighs the risk of adverse events when imaging is done in the context of a multidisciplinary program that oversees patient safety.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Challenges and Solutions

Until recently, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) were an absolute contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), due to concerns about their adverse interaction in the MRI environment. The increasing clinical need to perform MRI examinations in these patients was an impetus to the development of MR-Conditional CIEDs. Secure performance of MRI in these patients requires scanning under specified MR conditions as well as operating the device in MR-scanning mode. This requires robust institutional protocols and a well-trained multidisciplinary team of radiologists, cardiologists, device applications specialists, physicists, nurses, and MRI technologists. MRI can also be performed in patients with non-MRI Conditional or "legacy" CIEDs by following safety precautions and continuous monitoring. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is additionally challenging due to expected susceptibility artifacts generated by the CIEDs, which are either near or in the heart. As the most common indication for CMR in these patients is the evaluation of myocardial scar/fibrosis, acquiring a high-quality late gadolinium enhancement image is of the utmost importance. This sequence is hampered by artifactual high signal due to inadequate myocardial nulling. Several solutions are available to reduce these artifacts, including reducing inhomogeneity, technical adjustments, and use of sequences that are more resilient to artifacts. In this article, we review the precautions for CMR in patients with CIEDs, provide guidelines for secure performance of CMR in these patients, and discuss techniques for obtaining high quality CMR images with minimized artifacts.

Cardiac MRI for Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

OBJECTIVE. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) require cardiac MRI (CMRI) for a variety of reasons. The purpose of this study is to review and evaluate the value and safety of CMRI for patients with in situ CIEDs. CONCLUSION. Late gadolinium enhancement CMRI is the reference standard for assessing myocardial viability in patients with ventricular tachycardia before ablation of arrhythmogenic substrates. The use of late gadolinium enhancement CMRI for patients with CIEDs is safe as long as an imaging protocol is in place and precaution measures are taken.

Clinical experience of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacing devices: unrestricted patient population

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac pacing devices has become available despite previously being considered absolutely contraindicated. However, most institutional safety protocols have included several limitations on patient selection, leaving MRI unavailable for many patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the first 1000 MRI examinations conducted on patients with cardiac pacing devices at Helsinki University Hospital for any potential safety hazards and also to evaluate the long-term functionality of the safety protocol in “real-life” clinical practice.

Material and Methods

A total of 1000 clinically indicated MRI scans were performed with a 1.5-T MRI scanner according to the safety protocol. The following information was collected from the electronic medical record (EMR): patients’ date of birth; sex; pacing device generator model; date of MRI scan; date of the latest pacing device generator implantation; and the body region scanned. The EMR of these patients was checked and especially searched for any pacing device related safety hazards or adverse outcomes during or after the MRI scan.

Results

Only one potentially dangerous adverse event was noted in our study group. In addition, patients with abandoned leads, temporary pacing devices, and newly implanted pacing device generators were scanned successfully and safely.

Conclusion

MRI scans can be performed safely in patients with cardiac pacing devices if the dedicated safety protocol is followed.

MRI safety and devices: An update and expert consensus

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasing globally, and MRI safety issues regarding medical devices, which are constantly being developed or upgraded, represent an ongoing challenge for MRI personnel. To assist the MRI community, a panel of 10 radiologists with expertise in MRI safety from nine high-volume academic centers formed, with the objective of providing clarity on some of the MRI safety issues for the 10 most frequently questioned devices. Ten device categories were identified. The panel reviewed the literature, including key MRI safety issues regarding screening and adverse event reports, in addition to the manufacturer's Instructions For Use. Using a Delphi-inspired method, 36 practical recommendations were generated with 100% consensus that can aid the clinical MRI community. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:657-674.

Burden and consequences of retained cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead fragments after heart transplantation

We performed a retrospective review of 402 consecutive patients who underwent heart transplantation at our institution between January 2009 and March 2017. A retained cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) fragment was identified after transplantation in 49 of the 301 patients (16.2%) with CIED at baseline. Patients with retained fragments had leads with longer dwell times (median 2596 [1982, 3389] vs 1384 [610, 2202] days, P < .001), higher prevalence of previously abandoned leads (14.3% vs 2.8%, P = .003), and dual-coil defibrillator leads (98% vs 81%, P = .001) compared with patients without retained fragments. Five patients (10%) with retained CIED fragments underwent magnetic resonance imaging without adverse events. There was no difference in overall mortality between patients with and without CIED fragments (12% vs 11%, P = .81) Patients with retained fragments located in the superior vena cava had significantly higher fluoroscopic times (3.3 vs 2.9 minutes, P = .024) during subsequent endomyocardial biopsies. In a competing risk analysis, presence of a retained CIED fragment was associated with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (sub hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-4.10, P = .014) but not bloodstream infection after adjusting for potential confounders. In summary, retained CIED fragments are common after heart transplantation, and are associated with longer radiation exposure during biopsy procedures and upper extremity deep venous thrombosis.

[Pacemaker and MRI in clinical practice]

The number of cardiac pacemaker wearers is continuously increasing in Germany as well as worldwide. The probability of indications for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination during the lifetime is approximately 50-75% for every person. An MRI examination is nowadays possible for pacemaker wearers under certain conditions. Due to the technical developments during the last 10 years certain MRI-conditional pacemakers are available. The recommendations of the German and American medical specialist societies currently allow an MRI examination in patients with conventional pacemakers beyond the approval conditions (off-label use) under prespecified conditions, based on the study data. This article summarizes the information on conditions of use and reprogramming strategies as well as on the study situation for the clinical routine.

Novel extraction technique of retained pacemaker and defibrillator lead during heart transplantation

Background

Removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) by manual traction during orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) sometimes results in retained lead fragments. Moreover, abandoned leads and retained lead fragments are a contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and may be a cause of CIED infection.

Objective

To eliminate complications of retained lead fragments, we completely removed residual leads using an excimer laser sheath technique during OHT. We report our clinical experience and high success rate of lead extraction using the excimer laser sheath compared with manual traction during OHT.

Methods and results

We obtained data on 84 consecutive patients receiving OHT between August 2007 and August 2017. Thirty-nine of 84 patients had undergone CIED implantation before OHT and removal of all their leads was attempted during OHT. From 2007 to 2014, defibrillator and pacemaker leads were extracted by manual traction in all patients (N = 22). After 2015, all leads were extracted with the excimer laser sheath, and surgical assistance was prepared for the procedure (N = 17). Complete procedural success was achieved in 100% of patients in the excimer laser group and 77% of patients in the manual traction group.

Conclusion

Extraction of abandoned leads using the excimer laser sheath system during OHT is novel and safe technique, and has a higher success rate than extraction using manual traction during OHT.

What physicians do in case of a failure of the pace-sense part of a defibrillation lead : Survey in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

The possible treatment strategies for defects of the pace-sense (P/S) part of a defibrillation lead are either implantation of a new high-voltage (HV)-P/S lead, with or without extraction of the malfunctioning lead, or implantation of a P/S lead.

METHODS

We conducted a Web-based survey across cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) centers to investigate their procedural practice and decision-making process in cases of failure of the P/S portion of defibrillation leads. In particular, we focused on the question of whether the integrity of the HV circuit is confirmed by a test shock before decision-making. The questionnaire included 14 questions and was sent to 951 German, 341 Austrian, and 120 Swiss centers.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 183 of the 1412 centers surveyed (12.7% response rate). Most centers (90.2%) do not conduct a test shock to confirm the integrity of the HV circuit before decision-making. Procedural practice in lead management varies depending on the presentation of lead failure and whether the center applies a test shock. In centers that do not conduct a test shock, the majority (69.9%) implant a new HV-P/S lead. Most centers (61.7%) that test the integrity of the HV system implant a P/S lead. The majority of centers favor DF-4 connectors (74.1%) over DF-1 connectors (25.9%) at first CIED implantation.

CONCLUSION

Either implanting a new HV-P/S lead or placing an additional P/S lead are selected strategies if the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure is localized to the P/S portion. However, conducting a test shock to confirm the integrity of the HV component is rarely performed.

Changes in the specific absorption rate (SAR) of radiofrequency energy in patients with retained cardiac leads during MRI at 1.5T and 3T

PURPOSE

To evaluate the local specific absorption rate (SAR) and heating around retained cardiac leads during MRI at 64 MHz (1.5T) and 127 MHz (3T) as a function of RF coil type and imaging landmark.

METHODS

Numerical models of retained cardiac leads were built from CT and X-ray images of 6 patients with retained cardiac leads. Electromagnetic simulations and bio-heat modeling were performed with MRI RF body and head coils tuned to 64 MHz and 127 MHz and positioned at 9 different imaging landmarks covering an area from the head to the lower limbs.

RESULTS

For all patients and at both 1.5T and 3T, local transmit head coils produced negligible temperature rise ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>Δ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi> <mml:mo><</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>°</mml:mo> <mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> ) for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> . For body imaging with quadrature-driven coils at 1.5T, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>Δ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> during a 10-min scan remained < 3°C at all imaging landmarks for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> and <6°C for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> . For body imaging at 3T, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>Δ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> during a 10-min scan remained < 6°C at all imaging landmarks for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> . For shorter pulse sequences up to 2 min, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>Δ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> remained < 6°C for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> .

CONCLUSION

For the models based on 6 patients studied, simulations suggest that MRI could be performed safely using a local head coil at both 1.5T and 3T, and with a body coil at 1.5T with pulses that produced <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> . MRI at 3T could be performed safely in these patients using pulses with <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo> <mml:mo>‖</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mo> </mml:mo> <mml:mo>μ</mml:mo> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:math> .

Cardiac implanted electronic devices and MRI safety in 2018-the state of play

Traditionally, the presence of cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) was a contra-indication to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Professional groups from around the world are releasing updated guidelines for the imaging of MR-conditional and legacy CIEDs, reflecting increasing evidence that this can be performed safely when strict protocols are followed.

KEY POINTS

• The presence of a pacemaker or automatic implanted cardioverter defibrillator is no longer an absolute contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging. • Strict protocols enable diagnostic quality images to be obtained with minimal risk. • Close collaboration among radiologists, cardiologists and device manufacturer representatives is required.

Safety of magnetic resonance scanning without monitoring of patients with pacemakers

Aims

The objective of this study was to investigate whether it is safe to perform 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in pacemaker (PM) patients without pulse oximetry or electrocardiogram monitoring and with no special specific absorption rate (SAR) or time limits, provided that the PMs are interrogated and programmed to asynchronous mode prior to the scan.

Methods and results

This study reports the outcome of 207 MRI scans on PM patients at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital from June 2010 to September 2013. All MRIs were performed with the PMs in asynchronous mode and without additional monitoring. There were no adverse events registered among the PM patients during the study period. The only statistically significant change after MRI scans was a small, but clinically insignificant increase in atrial sense. No occurrences of reprogramming to power-on-reset were registered.

Conclusion

It is possible to perform MRI scans relatively safely in PM patients without additional monitoring or change in the normal MRI protocol, given that the PM has been assessed and reprogrammed prior to MRI. This is especially important to remember in the acute setting where MRI scans may be delayed when monitoring facilities are unavailable.

Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices: focus on contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging protocols

Aims

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been reported to be safe in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) provided a specific protocol is followed. The objective of this study was to assess whether this is also true for patients excluded from published protocols.

Methods and results

A total of 160 MRIs were obtained in 142 consecutive patients with CIEDs [106 patients had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and 36 had a pacemaker implanted] using an adapted, pre-specified protocol. A cardiac MRI was performed in 95 patients, and a spinal/brain MRI was performed in 47 patients. Forty-six patients (32%) had either abandoned leads (n = 10), and/or were pacemaker dependent with an implanted ICD (n = 19), had recently implanted CIEDs (n = 1), and/or had a CIED device with battery depletion (n = 2), and/or a component of the CIED was recalled or on advisory (n = 32). No major complications occurred. Some device parameters changed slightly, but significantly, right after or at 1-week post-MRI without requiring any reprogramming. In one patient with an ICD on advisory, the pacing rate changed inexplicably during one of his two MRIs from 90 to 50 b.p.m.

Conclusion

Using a pre-specified protocol, cardiac and non-cardiac MRIs were performed in CIED patients with pacemaker dependency, abandoned leads, or depleted batteries without occurrence of major adverse events. Patients with devices on advisory need to be monitored carefully during MRI, especially if they are pacemaker dependent.

Consequences of Retained Defibrillator and Pacemaker Leads After Heart Transplantation-An Underrecognized Problem

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are common in patients undergoing heart transplantation (HT), and complete removal is not always possible at the time of transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the frequency of retained CIED leads and clinical consequences in consecutive HT patients from 2013 to 2016. Clinical outcomes included bacteremia, upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT), lead migration, and inability to perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients (55 ± 11 years of age, 76% male) were identified; 37 (27%) had retained lead fragments (RLFs) at discharge. Patients with RLFs were older, had longer lead implantation time before HT, and a higher prevalence of dual-coil CIED leads compared with those without RLFs (P < .05 for all). Lead implantation time was identified as an independent predictor for RLFs (P < .05). Patients with RLFs had a higher frequency of DVT compared with the non-RLF group during the 1-year study period (42% vs 21%; P < .04). There was no difference in bacteremia. Fourteen patients (38%) could not undergo clinically indicated MRI.

CONCLUSION

RLFs after HT occur commonly and are associated with a higher rate of UEDVT and limit the use of MRI. Although no significant difference was found in the rates of bacteremia between the groups, this finding might be explained by the overall low incidence. Patients with risk factors for RLFs should be identified before transplantation, and complete lead removal should be considered with a multidisciplinary approach.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with legacy pacemakers and defibrillators and abandoned leads

BACKGROUND

During magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abandoned leads may act as antennae that result in tissue heating and arrhythmia induction.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of MRI in patients with abandoned leads, with the addition of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) assessment to screen for myocardial damage.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected database of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing MRI between 2008 and 2017 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and selected patients who had abandoned leads. We compared the adverse events in this population with an age, sex, and site of MRI-matched cohort of patients selected from this database. We evaluated paired (before/after) cTnT values using MRI in these patients.

RESULTS

Of 952 patients, 80 (8.4%) underwent 97 MRI scans with CIEDs in situ with 90 abandoned leads in place during the scans. The median age was 66 years (interquartile range 22.3 years) 66.1 years (interquartile range, Q1,Q3: 53.6, 75.9) with 66.3% (53 patients) men. There was no clinical or electrical evidence of CIED dysfunction, arrhythmias, or pain. Paired samples for the measurement of cTnT values were available in 40 patients undergoing 44 MRI examinations. The mean difference between the pre- and postimaging values was -0.002 ± 0.006 ng/mL (interquartile range 0). There was no difference after adjustment for total number of leads per patient and total number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator coils.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of myocardial injury as measured by paired cTnT. The risk of MRI with abandoned leads appears low, suggesting a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with CIEDs and abandoned leads who are considered for MRI.