Camacho Juan C, Moreno Courtney Coursey, Shah Anand D, Mittal Pardeep K, Mengistu Andenet, Lloyd Michael S, El-Chami Mikhael F, Lerakis Stamatios, Saindane Amit M
1 Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30322.
2 Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Sep;207(3):599-604. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16033. Epub 2016 Jun 15.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and diagnostic utility of 1.5-T MRI examinations of individuals with conventional and MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).
Patients with a CIED who were referred for MRI were evaluated by radiologists and cardiac electrophysiologists for study participation. CIED interrogation was performed immediately before and after MRI, and cardiac telemetry monitoring was performed during MRI. CIED programming changes, malfunctions, and intraprocedural events were documented. Whether diagnostic questions were answered and whether artifacts related to the CIED were present and negatively affected image interpretation were recorded.
One hundred thirteen MRI examinations were performed for 104 patients with CIEDs (74 pacemakers [60 conventional, 14 MRI conditional]; 39 implantable cardiac defibrillators). Device reprogramming was required before MRI for 62.8% of studies (71/113). No significant changes in lead parameters were noted during or after MRI. Electromagnetic noise was detected on at least one lead in 7.1% of studies. Three patients reported transient symptoms (one case each of heating at the pocket site, tingling at the pocket site, and palpitations). All images were considered diagnostic for the original clinical query. Artifacts related to CIEDs were described in 3.5% of MRI reports (4/113) and were present only when the pulse generator was included in the FOV. CIED-related artifacts limited evaluation of tissues immediately adjacent to the pulse generator.
Establishment of a multidisciplinary work flow allows individuals with conventional and MRI-conditional CIEDs to safely undergo 1.5-T MRI with diagnostic questions consistently answered.
本研究旨在评估常规及MRI条件适用的心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)患者进行1.5-T MRI检查的安全性和诊断效用。
因MRI检查而转诊的CIED患者由放射科医生和心脏电生理学家评估是否参与研究。在MRI检查前后立即对CIED进行问询,并在MRI检查期间进行心脏遥测监测。记录CIED编程变化、故障及术中事件。记录诊断问题是否得到解答,以及是否存在与CIED相关的伪影并对图像解读产生负面影响。
对104例CIED患者进行了113次MRI检查(74例起搏器[60例常规起搏器,14例MRI条件适用起搏器];39例植入式心脏除颤器)。62.8%的检查(71/113)在MRI检查前需要对设备进行重新编程。在MRI检查期间及之后,未发现导联参数有显著变化。7.1%的检查至少在一根导线上检测到电磁噪声。3例患者报告有短暂症状(分别为囊袋部位发热1例、囊袋部位刺痛1例、心悸1例)。所有图像均被认为对原始临床问题具有诊断价值。3.5%的MRI报告(4/113)描述了与CIED相关的伪影,且仅当脉冲发生器包含在视野(FOV)中时才出现。与CIED相关的伪影限制了对紧邻脉冲发生器的组织的评估。
建立多学科工作流程可使常规及MRI条件适用的CIED患者安全地接受1.5-T MRI检查,且诊断问题能得到一致解答。