Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in patients with abandoned or functioning epicardial pacing leads

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on cardiac pacing from 2021 allow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) but do not recommend MRI in patients with epicardial pacing leads. The clinical dilemma remains whether performing an MRI in patients with CIED and epicardial leads is safe. We aimed to evaluate the safety of performing an MRI in patients with CIED and abandoned or functioning epicardial pacing leads.

Methods

We included all adult patients who underwent clinically indicated MRIs with CIED and functioning or abandoned epicardial leads in a single tertiary hospital between November 2011 and October 2019. The data were retrospectively collected.

Results

Twenty-six MRIs were performed on 17 patients with functioning or abandoned epicardial pacing leads. Sixty-nine percent of the MRI scans (18/26) were conducted on patients with functioning epicardial pacing leads. A definite adverse event occurred in one MRI scan. This was a transient elevation of the pacing threshold in a patient with a functioning epicardial ventricular pacing lead implanted 29 years previously. An irreversible atrial pacing lead impedance elevation was detected 6 months after the MRI in another patient; the association with the previous MRI remained unclear. No adverse events were detected in MRIs performed on patients with modern (implanted in 2000 or later) functioning epicardial leads.

Conclusions

MRIs in patients with CIED and modern functioning epicardial pacing leads were performed without detectable adverse events. Further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm MRI safety in patients with epicardial pacing leads.

Key Points

• Currently, MRI in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and functioning or abandoned epicardial pacing leads is not recommended.

• MRIs in patients with CIED and modern functioning epicardial leads (implanted in 2000 or later) were performed without detectable adverse events in our patient cohort.

• Allowing MRI in patients with epicardial pacing leads may significantly improve the diagnostic work-up, especially in specific patient groups, such as patients with congenital heart disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ccTGA:

Congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries

CHD:

Congenital heart disease

CIED:

Cardiac implantable electronic device

CRT-P:

Cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker

ESC:

European Society of Cardiology

PM:

Pacemaker

RF:

Radiofrequency

TGA:

Transposition of the great arteries

UVH:

Univentricular heart

References

  1. Achenbach S, Moshage W, Diem B, Bieberlea T, Schibgilla V, Bachmann K (1997) Effects of magnetic resonance imaging on cardiac pacemakers and electrodes. Am Heart J 134:467–473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Martin ET, Coman JA, Shellock FG, Pulling CC, Fair R, Jenkins K (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-Tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:1315–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fontaine JM, Mohamed FB, Gottlieb C, Callans DJ, Marchlinski FE (1998) Rapid ventricular pacing in a pacemaker patient undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 21:1336–1339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD et al (2017) Assessing the risks associated with MRI in patients with a pacemaker or defibrillator. N Engl J Med 376:755–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nazarian S, Hansford R, Rahsepar AA et al (2017) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac devices. N Engl J Med 377:2555–2564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhuva AN, Moralee R, Moon JC, Manisty CH (2020) Making MRI available for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: growing need and barriers to change. Eur Radiol 30:1378–1384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB et al (2021) 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 43:3427–3520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pulver AF, Puchalski MD, Bradley DJ et al (2009) Safety and imaging quality of MRI in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease patients with pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 32:450–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hwang YM, Kim J, Lee JH et al (2016) Cardiac implantable electronic device safety during magnetic resonance imaging. Korean Circ J 46:804–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bertelsen L, Petersen HH, Philbert BT, Svendsen JH, Thomsen C, Vejlstrup N (2017) Safety of magnetic resonance scanning without monitoring of patients with pacemakers. Europace 19:818–823

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bireley M, Kovach JR, Morton C et al (2020) Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children is safe with most pacemaker systems, including those with epicardial leads. Pediatr Cardiol 41:801–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gakenheimer-Smith L, Etheridge SP, Niu MC et al (2020) MRI in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with CIEDs and epicardial or abandoned leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 43:797–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Padmanabhan D, Kella DK, Mehta R et al (2018) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with legacy pacemakers and defibrillators and abandoned leads. Heart Rhythm 15:228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shah AD, Patel AU, Knezevic A et al (2017) Clinical performance of magnetic resonance imaging conditional and nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 40:467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nyotowidjojo IS, Skinner K, Shah AS et al (2018) Thoracic versus nonthoracic MR imaging for patients with an MR nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic device. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 41:589–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schaller RD, Brunker T, Riley MP, Marchlinski FE, Nazarian S, Litt H (2021) Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices with abandoned leads. JAMA Cardiol 6:549–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nazarian S, Reynolds MR, Ryan MP, Wolff SD, Mollenkopf SA, Turakhia MP (2016) Utilization and likelihood of radiologic diagnostic imaging in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vuorinen AM, Pakarinen S, Jaakkola I, Holmstrom M, Kivisto S, Kaasalainen T (2019) Clinical experience of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacing devices: unrestricted patient population. Acta Radiol 60:1414–1421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaasalainen T, Pakarinen S, Kivisto S et al (2014) MRI with cardiac pacing devices - safety in clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 83:1387–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Indik JH, Gimbel JR, Abe H et al (2017) 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 14:e97–e153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Horwood L, Attili A, Luba F et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices: focus on contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging protocols. Europace 19:812–817

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nyenhuis JA, Sung-Min P, Kamondetdacha R, Amjad A, Shellock FG, Rezai AR (2005) MRI and implanted medical devices: basic interactions with an emphasis on heating. IEEE Tran Device and Mater Reliab 5:467–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mattei E, Gentili G, Censi F, Triventi M, Calcagnini G (2015) Impact of capped and uncapped abandoned leads on the heating of an MR-conditional pacemaker implant. Magn Reson Med 73:390–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Erlebacher JA, Cahill PT, Pannizzo F, Knowles RJR (1986) Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on DDD pacemakers. Am J Cardiol 57:437–440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Luechinger R, Zeijlemaker VA, Pedersen EM et al (2005) In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J 26:376–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferreira AM, Costa F, Marques H, Cardim N, Tralhao A, Adragao P (2014) MRI-conditional pacemakers: current perspectives Med Devices (Auckl) 7:115–124

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bottomley PA, Kumar A, Edelstein WA, Allen JM, Karmarkar PV (2010) Designing passive MRI-safe implantable conducting leads with electrodes. Med Phys 37:3828–3843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gray RW, Bibens WT, Shellock FG (2005) Simple design changes to wires to substantially reduce MRI-induced heating at 1.5 T: implications for implanted leads. Magn Reson Imaging 23:887–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Padmanabhan D, Kella DK, Deshmukh AJ et al (2019) Safety of thoracic magnetic resonance imaging for patients with pacemakers and defibrillators. Heart Rhythm 16:1645–1651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Balmer C, Gass M, Dave H, Duru F, Luechinger R (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging of patients with epicardial leads: in vitro evaluation of temperature changes at the lead tip. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 56:321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Langman DA, Goldberg IB, Finn JP, Ennis DB (2011) Pacemaker lead tip heating in abandoned and pacemaker-attached leads at 1.5 tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:426–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Higgins JV, Gard JJ, Sheldon SH et al (2014) Safety and outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with abandoned pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 37:1284–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gatterer C, Stelzmüller M-E, Kammerlander A et al (2021) Safety and image quality of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with retained epicardial pacing wires after heart transplantation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 23:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Panych LP, Madore B (2018) The physics of MRI safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:28–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Higgins JV, Watson RE, Jaffe AS et al (2016) Cardiac troponin T in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 45:91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Silvetti MS, Drago F, Di Carlo D, Placidi S, Brancaccio G, Carotti A (2013) Cardiac pacing in paediatric patients with congenital heart defects: transvenous or epicardial? Europace 15:1280–1286

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has received funding by a HUS Medical Imaging Center research grant and by an Ida Montin Foundation research grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology, HUS Diagnostic Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland

    Aino-Maija Vuorinen, Miia Holmström, Sari Kivistö, Juha I. Peltonen & Touko Kaasalainen

  2. Heart and Lung Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland

    Riitta Paakkanen, Jarkko Karvonen & Juha Sinisalo

Authors
  1. Aino-Maija Vuorinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riitta Paakkanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jarkko Karvonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juha Sinisalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miia Holmström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sari Kivistö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Juha I. Peltonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Touko Kaasalainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aino-Maija Vuorinen.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Touko Kaasalainen.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Abbott (Jarkko Karvonen), Medtronic (Jarkko Karvonen).

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because research based purely on documentation or registered materials does not need to be reviewed by the regional ethics committees and informed written consent is not required for research based on purely documentation.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Research based purely on documentation or registered materials does not need to be reviewed by the regional ethics committees.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in Vuorinen AM, Pakarinen S, Jaakkola I, Holmstrom M, Kivisto S, Kaasalainen T (2019) Clinical experience of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacing devices: unrestricted patient population. Acta Radiol 60:1414–1421. Seven MRIs in seven patients with functioning or abandoned epicardial leads were included in this previous publication and are also included in this study. However, our previous article concentrated on the general safety of MRI in patients with CIED and on the MRI safety protocol. Patients with functioning epicardial pacing leads remained without specific note. This publication concentrates specifically in the subgroup of patients with epicardial pacing leads and adds valuable information in this setting.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vuorinen, AM., Paakkanen, R., Karvonen, J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging safety in patients with abandoned or functioning epicardial pacing leads. Eur Radiol 32, 3830–3838 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08469-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08469-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation