Advertisement

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

Published:October 15, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.10.022

      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.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart Rhythm
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • John Camm A.
        • Nisam S.
        European utilization of the implantable defibrillator: has 10 years changed the ‘enigma’?.
        Europace. 2010; 12: 1063-1069
        • Kremers M.S.
        • Hammill S.C.
        • Berul C.I.
        • et al.
        The National ICD Registry Report: version 2.1 including leads and pediatrics for years 2010 and 2011.
        Heart Rhythm. 2013; 10: e59-e65
        • Epstein A.E.
        • DiMarco J.P.
        • Ellenbogen K.A.
        • et al.
        ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmic Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
        Circulation. 2008; 117: e350-e408
        • Smith-Bindman R.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • Johnson E.
        • et al.
        Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010.
        JAMA. 2012; 307: 2400-2409
        • Kalin R.
        • Stanton M.S.
        Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005; 28: 326-328
        • Nazarian S.
        • Reynolds M.R.
        • Ryan M.P.
        • Wolff S.D.
        • Mollenkopf S.A.
        • Turakhia M.P.
        Utilization and likelihood of radiologic diagnostic imaging in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 43: 115-127
        • Nazarian S.
        • Hansford R.
        • Roguin A.
        • et al.
        A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 415-424
        • Russo R.J.
        • Costa H.S.
        • Silva P.D.
        • et al.
        Assessing the risks associated with MRI in Patients with a pacemaker or defibrillator.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 755-764
        • Strom J.B.
        • Whelan J.B.
        • Shen C.
        • Zheng S.
        • Mortele K.J.
        • Kramer D.B.
        The safety and utility of magnetic resonance imaging on patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.
        Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: 1138-1144
        • Mahajan V.S.
        • Jarolim P.
        How to interpret elevated cardiac troponin levels.
        Circulation. 2011; 124: 2350-2354
        • Sheldon S.H.
        • Bunch T.J.
        • Cogert G.A.
        • et al.
        Multicenter study of the safety and effects of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with coronary sinus left ventricular pacing leads.
        Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: 345-349
        • Higgins J.V.
        • Gard J.J.
        • Sheldon S.H.
        • et al.
        Safety and outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with abandoned pacemaker and defibrillator leads.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2014; 37: 1284-1290
        • Friedman H.L.
        • Acker N.
        • Dalzell C.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with recently implanted pacemakers.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013; 36: 1090-1095
        • Sommer T.
        • Naehle C.P.
        • Yang 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: 1285-1292
        • Russo R.J.
        Determining the risks of clinically indicated nonthoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T for patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: rationale and design of the MagnaSafe Registry.
        Am Heart J. 2013; 165: 266-272
        • Langman D.A.
        • Goldberg I.B.
        • Finn J.P.
        • Ennis D.B.
        Pacemaker lead tip heating in abandoned and pacemaker-attached leads at 1.5 Tesla MRI.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 33: 426-431
        • Horwood L.
        • Attili A.
        • Luba F.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices: focus on contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging protocols.
        Europace. 2017; 19: 812-817
        • Beinart R.
        • Nazarian S.
        Effects of external electrical and magnetic fields on pacemakers and defibrillators: from engineering principles to clinical practice.
        Circulation. 2013; 128: 2799-2809
        • Luechinger R.
        • Zeijlemaker V.A.
        • Pedersen E.M.
        • et al.
        In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging.
        Eur Heart J. 2005; 26 (discussion 325–377): 376-383
        • Irnich W.
        Abandoned pacemaker leads are a potential risk for patients undergoing MRI.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012; 35 (author reply 372): 371
        • Sommer T.
        • Bauer W.
        • Fischbach K.
        • et al.
        MR imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
        Rofo. 2017; 189: 204-217
        • Swerdlow C.D.
        • Kalahasty G.
        • Ellenbogen K.A.
        Implantable cardiac defibrillator lead failure and management.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67: 1358-1368
        • Deshmukh A.
        • Patel N.
        • Noseworthy P.A.
        • et al.
        Trends in use and adverse outcomes associated with transvenous lead removal in the United States.
        Circulation. 2015; 132: 2363-2371