4.6 Review

Do we need pacemakers resistant to magnetic resonance imaging?

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 353-365

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.eupc.2005.02.120

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; pacemaker; interference; heating of electrodes; death during MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Manufacturers of pacemakers (PM) and of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices state that MRI scanning of PM wearers is contraindicated. This paper tries to summarise which effects can interfere with PM, what can be hazardous, and how treatment of PM in MRI can be modified to guarantee compatibility. Material and methods All PM tested were from deceased patients. Reed contact thresholds and reactions were investigated in tow magnetostatic fields and compared with those in strong magnetostatic fields. Influence of gradient fields on PM and heating due to radiofrequency (RF) pulses were estimated. Thirty Legal Medicine Departments were questioned whether deaths of PM patients during MRI are known. Results Reed contacts are influenced above 0.7 mT. In MRI fields only 28% of the PM in magnet mode remained so in all orientations. Of synchronous PM, 76% remained synchronous in all orientations. Gradient fields can influence sensing but cannot stimulate. Power density and temperature rise produced by RF fall rapidly with distance. Our question revealed six deaths. All suffered from sick-sinus-syndrome and all were not PM dependent. In three cases ventricular fibrillation was proven as the cause of death. Discussion Asynchronous pacing due to magnetostatic and gradient fields may be problematic in patients with spontaneous rhythm. To avoid them, PM triggered MRI scan restricted to refractory period is proposed. Neither inhibition of PM nor heating of the electrode poses real risks. So far, we have examined eight patients 12 times in MRI triggered mode without problems. (c) 2005 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available