Premium
Prospective evaluation of the utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with non‐MRI‐conditional pacemakers and defibrillators
Author(s) -
Padmanabhan Deepak,
Kella Danesh,
Isath Ameesh,
Tandon Nidhi,
Mulpuru Siva,
Deshmukh Abhishek,
Kapa Suraj,
Mehta Ramila,
Dalzell Connie,
Olson Nora,
Felmlee Joel,
Jondal Mary L.,
Asirvatham Samuel J.,
Watson Robert E.,
Cha Yong M.,
Friedman Paul
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.14705
Subject(s) - medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , context (archaeology) , adverse effect , radiology , mri scan , retrospective cohort study , surgery , paleontology , biology
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.