Abstract 183: Safety and Utility Outcomes of Off-label Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Patients With Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices

Author(s):  
Jordan B Strom ◽  
Jill B Whelan ◽  
ShuangQi Zheng ◽  
Daniel B Kramer

Background: Off-label magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) has been limited due to concerns about safety and unclear diagnostic and prognostic utility. Methods: We evaluated all patients with CIEDs not FDA-approved as MRI-conditional who were referred to our clinical protocol for off-label imaging from June 2014 - October 2016. All referrals were screened by radiology and electrophysiology, with peri-MRI programming and monitoring performed by cardiology. Clinical and device characteristics were abstracted from electronic records. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of major adverse events (loss of pacing, inappropriate shock or anti-tachycardia pacing, need for system revision, or death). The primary clinical outcomes were (1) interpretability and (2) utility of MRI, with the latter graded independently by two reviewers according to whether the MRI changed management, prognosis, or guided intervention. Secondary safety outcomes included or minor adverse events (inappropriate pacing, arrhythmias, power on reset events, or discomfort at the generator site), and clinically significant changes in lead parameters or battery life both (1) immediately post-MRI and (2) at six months. Results: A total of 190 MRIs were performed on 123 patients (63.1% men, mean age 70±18.5 years, 37.0% ICDs, 21.8% pacemaker-dependent) predominantly for brain or spinal conditions (Figure). Nearly one quarter (22.7%) were performed for urgent or emergent indications. Major adverse events were rare: no deaths or system revisions; 1 patient with loss of pacing without clinical sequelae (overall rate, 0.5%). Nearly all (98.4%) studies were interpretable, while 74.9% were determined to change management based on pre-specified criteria. Minor adverse events were unusual (overall rate 1.6%): 2 reports of heating at the generator site; 1 patient with an atrial arrhythmia. No clinically significant changes were observed in device parameters acutely after MRI or at 6 months as compared with baseline across all patient and device categories. Conclusions: Off-label MRIs performed under a strict clinical protocol demonstrated reassuring safety outcomes while providing interpretable imaging that frequently influenced clinical care.

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  

Objectives: To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and methods: We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared. Results: Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded. Conclusions: In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110043
Author(s):  
Hanna J El-Khoury ◽  
Niranjan J Sathianathen ◽  
Yuxin Jiao ◽  
Reza Farzan ◽  
Dennis Gyomber ◽  
...  

Objectives: This study aimed to characterise the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as an adjunct to prostate biopsy, and to assess the effect of the new Australian Medicare rebate on practice at a metropolitan public hospital. Patients and methods: We identified patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy at a single institution over a two-year period. Patients were placed into two groups, depending upon whether their consent was obtained before or after the introduction of the Australian Medicare rebate for mpMRI. We extracted data on mpMRI results and TRUS-guided biopsy histopathology. Descriptive statistics were used to demonstrate baseline patient characteristics as well as MRI and histopathology results. Results: A total of 252 patients were included for analysis, of whom 128 underwent biopsy following the introduction of the Medicare rebate for mpMRI. There was a significant association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 (PI-RADS) classification and the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer ( p<0.01). Only one man with PI-RADS ⩽2 was found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. Four men with a PI-RADS 3 lesion were found to have clinically significant cancer. A PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesion was significantly associated with the diagnosis of clinically significant cancer on multivariable analysis. Conclusion: mpMRI is an important adjunct to biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Our findings support the safety of omitting/delaying prostate biopsy in men with negative mpMRI. Level of evidence: Level 3 retrospective case-control study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document