Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Letter

Pacemakers in MRI for the Neuroradiologist: Revisited

E. Kanal
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2018, 39 (5) E54-E55; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5565
E. Kanal
aMagnetic Resonance Services Department of Radiology University of Pittsburgh Medical Center University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for E. Kanal
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

I read with interest the excellent article by Korutz et al1 regarding their approach to MR imaging of pacemakers. The authors are to be praised for their logical and stepwise approach to device safety in the MR imaging environment. I assume that the timing of the publication of this article likely explains the omission of a reference to the sentinel publication on this topic.2 That comprehensive publication also provides almost unprecedented strength of recommendations and quality of evidence quantifications.

I would like to suggest other approaches to several opinions promulgated by Korutz et al.

The 6-week waiting period of the MR imaging safety labeling condition historically results predominantly because during Phase III preclinical trials, device manufacturers did not want acute/subacute surgical postimplantation adverse events (such as spontaneous lead dislodgment) to be confused with MR imaging–related adverse events. Because these were the conditions under which these devices were studied, this same “6-week postimplantation” wording finds its way into the conditions of FDA approval. While scanning before 6 weeks postimplantation would indeed be off-label, it would be a shame for a clinically indicated or required MR imaging examination to be canceled simply because the study was needed earlier than 6 weeks postimplantation.

The article is directed to neuroradiologists, and it is indeed likely that the typical head or spine study they perform would expose at least part of the cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) and/or its leads to clinically relevant transmitted radiofrequency (RF) and/or MR imaging gradient (ie, dB/dt) energies. Yet a clinically indicated MR imaging study might well be safely performed on a patient with a CIED if the requested MR imaging examination were 1) in a region where the anticipated gradient dB/dt exposure to the CIED and its leads would be minimal; and 2) there would be no significant exposure of the CIED or its components to transmitted RF energies or significant induced electric field pathways. These conditions might exist for imaging of the leg, knee, ankle, foot, and so forth of a typical-height adult, though such regions would admittedly not be routinely examined by a neuroradiologist.

The relatively recent FDA approval of the MR imaging conditionally safe labeling for several brands of leadless intracardiac pacing devices is also noteworthy because such leadless devices negate most of the MR safety concerns raised in the article.

Induced Lenz forces from rapid motion of CIEDs through static magnetic spatial gradients (even for nonferrous electrically conductive materials) suggest that it might be appropriate to recommend that all patients and health care workers with implants move slowly within zone IV, especially when near or in the MR imaging scanner itself.

The authors note significant hesitation “for patients who are not awake and alert for the MR imaging examination, such as those who … are unable to report pain or discomfort during the examination ….” Because the primary CIED-related potential acute concerns associated with the gradient and RF fields are arrhythmogenesis and endocardial thermogenic damage/edema at the endocardial contact points of the intracardiac leads, it is unclear that a conscious responsive patient would be able to detect, let alone timely report, pain or discomfort in case of either thermal endocardial damage or arrhythmogenesis.

The authors conclude, “A few absolute contraindications remain for performing MR imaging in a patient with a CIED” (eg, “a device that was implanted <6 weeks before the MR imaging examination”). Our responsibility as physicians is to perform a benefit-risk assessment for each patient's clinical scenario before providing blanket approvals—or cancellations—of any examination. MR imaging of patients with CIEDs is no exception. With appropriate clinical supervision from our electrophysiology colleagues and our ability to markedly decrease transmitted RF energies and today even imaging gradient dB/dt as needed, one might reasonably accept for MR imaging a patient with an unlabeled device with suspected cord compression, epidural abscess, device implanted for <6 weeks, and so forth. Alternatively, for even elective studies, the requested examination may be in an anatomic location for which no significant RF or imaging gradient exposure to the CIED will occur, regardless of the CIED label or the presence/absence of lead breaks. Therefore, as long as we are able to assess potential benefits and risks to our patients, I respectfully submit that absolute contraindications and carte blanche rejection of patients with devices from clinically indicated MR imaging studies without some level of case review and relative benefit-risk ratio assessment should no longer be recommended or implemented.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Emanuel Kanal—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Medtronic, St. Jude Medical.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Korutz AW,
    2. Obajuluwa A,
    3. Lester MS, et al
    . Pacemakers in MRI for the neuroradiologist. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:2222–30 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5314 pmid:28705821
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Indik JH,
    2. Gimbel JR,
    3. Alkmim-Teixeira R, et al
    . 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:e97–e153 doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.04.025 pmid:28502708
    CrossRefPubMed
  • © 2018 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 39 (5)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 39, Issue 5
1 May 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pacemakers in MRI for the Neuroradiologist: Revisited
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Pacemakers in MRI for the Neuroradiologist: Revisited
E. Kanal
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2018, 39 (5) E54-E55; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5565

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Pacemakers in MRI for the Neuroradiologist: Revisited
E. Kanal
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2018, 39 (5) E54-E55; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5565
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Reply:
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire