MRI Conditional Devices, Safety, and Access: Choose Wisely and When You Come to the Fork in the Road, Take It

SCMR expert consensus statement for cardiovascular magnetic resonance of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a proven imaging modality for informing diagnosis and prognosis, guiding therapeutic decisions, and risk stratifying surgical intervention. Patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) would be expected to derive particular benefit from CMR given high prevalence of cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia. While several guidelines have been published over the last 16 years, it is important to recognize that both the CIED and CMR technologies, as well as our knowledge in MR safety, have evolved rapidly during that period. Given increasing utilization of CIED over the past decades, there is an unmet need to establish a consensus statement that integrates latest evidence concerning MR safety and CIED and CMR technologies. While experienced centers currently perform CMR in CIED patients, broad availability of CMR in this population is lacking, partially due to limited availability of resources for programming devices and appropriate monitoring, but also related to knowledge gaps regarding the risk-benefit ratio of CMR in this growing population. To address the knowledge gaps, this SCMR Expert Consensus Statement integrates consensus guidelines, primary data, and opinions from experts across disparate fields towards the shared goal of informing evidenced-based decision-making regarding the risk-benefit ratio of CMR for patients with CIEDs.

Assessing Radiology Practice Patterns for Obtaining MRI in Pediatric Patients with MR-Conditional Tracheostomy Tubes

OBJECTIVES

Silicone tracheostomy tubes are a popular choice for pediatric patients with chronic tracheostomies due to their pliability and increased comfort. However, the presence of wire reinforcement causes them to be labeled "MR-conditional." The objective of this study was to understand practice patterns across radiology departments for obtaining MRI in children with MR-conditional tracheostomy tubes.

METHODS

A survey consisting of 7 questions aimed at determining a facility's protocol for obtaining MRI in children with tracheostomy tubes was developed and administered via telephone to MRI technologists at US children's hospitals.

RESULTS

182 children's hospitals were identified and 59 responses were obtained across 30 states (32.4%). 19 sites (32%) were excluded as they were unable to perform MRI. All 40 facilities reported that they have a standard questionnaire for medical implants, however only 20 reported that tracheostomy tubes are included on that questionnaire (50%). 6 (15%) reported all MR-conditional tubes are changed to MR-safe ones. Of the remaining 34, protocols were as follows: 1 (2.9%) scans patients with conditional tubes for a maximum of 15 minutes, 5 (14.7%) only use a 1.5T magnet, and 28 (82.3%) reported following the manufacturer conditions. In terms of artifact, 3 sites change MR-conditional tubes to MR-safe if scanning the head, neck, chest, or abdomen (8.8%), 6 (17.6%) change the tube if scanning the head or neck, 15 (44.1%) change the tube only if scanning the neck, and 10 (29.4%) were not aware of issues with artifact.

CONCLUSION

Based on this survey of MRI technologists at US children's hospitals, there is no unified protocol for obtaining MRI in pediatric patients with MR-conditional tracheostomy tubes. A lack of standardized protocols may be contributing to unnecessary tracheostomy changes. Future research includes clearly defining the anatomical regions affected by wire-related artifact and developing a standardized MRI protocol for these patients.