ClinicalImaging/mappingMagnetic resonance imaging in patients with a pacemaker system designed for the magnetic resonance environment
Introduction
Use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging modality of choice in many fields (e.g., brain, spinal cord, and musculoskeletal system) is rapidly increasing. However, manufacturers of cardiac devices and MRI systems contraindicate MRI for patients with implanted pacemaker systems due to multiple associated risks. Approximately five million patients worldwide currently are implanted with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and at least 50% of these patients are expected to be indicated to undergo clinical MRI over the lifetime of their device.1
Literature documents that several interactions between the MRI-associated static magnetic field, gradient fields, and radiofrequency (RF) field and the implanted pacemaker system may be hazardous to the patient and/or may damage the device.2, 3, 4 Despite the potential for adverse outcomes, a few centers perform MRI scanning of carefully selected pacemaker patients using precautions when the benefit outweighs the risk. Even in these centers and under extensive expert supervision, clinically significant irregular pacemaker system behavior cannot always be prevented or good patient outcomes assured.5
A pacemaker system (EnRhythm MRI SureScan implantable pulse generator and CapSureFix MRI leads [model 5086 MRI leads] used in support of the Revo MRI SureScan pacing system, Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) designed specifically to mitigate these hazards provides access to pacemaker patients for this important diagnostic modality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this novel pacemaker system during MRI in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.
Section snippets
Pacemaker system
The following design modifications were made to the pacemaker system to improve MRI compatibility. (1) The leads were modified to reduce RF lead tip heating. (2) Internal circuits were changed to reduce the potential for cardiac stimulation. (3) The amount of ferromagnetic materials was limited. (4) Internal circuit protection was improved to prevent disruption of the internal power supply. (5) The reed switch was replaced by a Hall sensor, whose behavior in a static magnetic field is
Trial population
A total of 464 patients were randomized after successful pacemaker system implantation between February 2007 and August 2008 (258 to the MRI group and 206 to the control group). A summary of the distribution of patient enrollments, follow-up by randomized group, and inclusion and exclusion of data are given in Figure 1. Mean follow-up was 11.2 ± 5.2 months (range 0.1–21.5 months). Patient characteristics were typical of pacemaker patients (Table 2).
Safety
A total of 211 patients underwent MRI
Discussion
This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of a pacemaker system specifically designed to be used during MRI. No MRI-related complications, no disturbances of pacemaker function, and no ventricular arrhythmia induction were observed. PCT and sensing amplitude changes from immediately before the MRI/control visit to the 1-month post visit were clinically equivalent between MRI and control groups. All pacemaker system-related complications were
Conclusion
MRI scanning of patients with this specific pacemaker system evaluated in the trial was performed safely with no adverse impact on either the patient or the pacemaker system. It is important to note that this safety is conditional upon the use of only this complete pacemaker system. Safety is also conditional upon the pacing system being evaluated to ensure normal function and appropriate programming as well as upon following specific limitations on the MR scan, including use in a 1.5-T MRI
Acknowledgments
We thank all of the physicians and their staff for participating in this trial. We also thank Michael Hull and Craig Balog for conducting the statistics, Inge Jenniskens and Amy Kalmes for review of the manuscript, as well as the other clinical team members.
References (23)
- et al.
Complications arising after implantation of DDD pacemakers: the MOST experience
Am J Cardiol
(2003) - et al.
Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
(2005) - et al.
Pacing in magnetic resonance imaging environment: clinical and technical considerations on compatibility
Eur Heart J
(2001) - et al.
In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging
Eur Heart J
(2005) - et al.
Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T
Circulation
(2004) - et al.
How to perform magnetic resonance imaging on patients with implantable cardiac arrhythmia devices
Heart Rhythm
(2009) - et al.
Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of patients with a new Medtronic EnRhythm MRI SureScan pacing system: clinical study design
Trials
(2008) - 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 Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Circulation
(2008) - et al.
Early complications following dual chamber pacemaker implantation: 10-year experience of a regional pacing center
Eur J Cardiac Pacing Electrophysiol
(1995) - et al.
Early complications after dual chamber versus single chamber pacemaker implantation
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
(1994)
Power deposition in whole-body NMR imaging
Med Phys
Cited by (0)
Each author participated sufficiently in this work as follows: (1) provided substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and (2) drafted manuscript or revised for intellectual content. Medtronic, Inc., provided funding for this trial and is the manufacturer of the dual-chamber pacemaker system used in the trial. B.L. Wilkoff, D. Bello, E. Kanal, W.B. Johnson, B. Ramza, R. Luechinger, H. Puererfellner, F. Duru, R. Sutton, and T. Sommer are consultants to Medtronic.