Abstract
Funding Acknowledgements
Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): HUS Medical Imaging Center research grant
Background
The Heart and Rhythm Society’s consensus statement 2017 approves magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), but excludes patients with epicardial and abandoned leads. Potential safety hazards of an MRI with epicardial pacing leads include heating of the tip of the lead and induction of current in the pacing lead resulting in inappropriate cardiac stimulation. Only a few small studies of MRI safety with epicardial pacing leads have been published and adverse events have been rare. The clinical dilemma remains, whether performing an MRI on a patient with CIED and epicardial pacing leads is safe.
We have performed MRIs on patients with CIED and epicardial pacing leads when benefits have been considered to outweigh the risks after careful case-by-case evaluation following our institutional MRI with CIED safety protocol.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of performing an MRI scan on patients with CIED and abandoned or functional epicardial pacing leads.
Methods
All the clinically indicated MRI examinations conducted on adult patients with CIED and functional or abandoned epicardial leads (n = 24) performed in our hospital between November 2011 and October 2019 were included in this observational retrospective study. The data were retrospectively collected from electronic medical records.
Results
Altogether 24 MRIs were performed to 16 patients with functional or abandoned epicardial pacing leads (Table). 93.8% (15/16) patients had congenital heart disease. Cardiac MRI was the most frequent examination (21/24, 91.7%). 66.7% of the MRI scans (16/24) were conducted on patients with functional epicardial pacing leads. In 5/24 (20.8%) MRIs, the patient was pacemaker-dependent.
A clinically significant event occurred in one MRI scan. This was transient elevation of the pacing lead threshold in a patient with functional epicardial ventricular pacing lead, that was implanted 29 years prior to the MRI. In another patient with 30-year-old functional epicardial pacing leads, clinically significant irreversible elevation in atrial pacing lead impedance was detected 6 months after the MRI and unlikely related to previous MRI examination.
None of the patients experienced sensations leading to cessation of the MRI scans. No clinically significant pacing lead parameter changes were detected after MRIs performed on patients with modern (implanted year 2000 or later) functional epicardial pacing leads or functional endocardial leads and abandoned epicardial leads.
Conclusions
MRI examinations in patients with CIED and modern functional epicardial pacing leads were performed without detectable adverse events. Performing an MRI with old functional epicardial pacing leads may involve more risks.
COMPLETE FOUR CHAMBER RESYNCHRONIZATION VIA NOVEL PERCUTANEOUS EPICARDIAL PACING LEAD
