4.7 Article

In vitro investigation of pacemaker lead heating induced by magnetic resonance imaging: Role of implant geometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 879-886

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21536

关键词

pacemaker; lead heating; fluoroptic measurements; implant geometry; radiofrequency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of the geometry of implantable pacemakers (PMs) on lead heating induced by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: In vitro experiments were conducted with two different setups, using fluoroptic probes to measure the temperature increase. The first experiment consisted of a rectangular box filled with a gelled saline and a pacemaker with its leads. This box was exposed in an MRI birdcage coil to a sinusoidal 64-MHz field with a calibrated whole-body specific absorption rate (WB-SAR) of 1 W/kg. The highest SAR and temperature increase (3000 W/kg. 12 degrees C) occurred for the implant configuration having the largest area. The second experimental setup consisted of a human-shaped torso filled with gelled saline. In this setup the PM and its lead were exposed to a real MRI scanner, using clinical sequences with WB-SAR up to 2 W/kg. Results: We found that higher heating occurs for configurations with longer exposed lead lengths and that right chest PMs showed the highest temperature and local SAR (11.9 degrees C, 2345 W/kg), whereas the left chest PMs were less heated (6.3 degrees C, 1362 W/kg). Implant geometry, exposed lead length, and lead area must be considered in the wide variation of temperature increases induced by MRI. Conclusions: The amount of MRI-induced lead tip heating depends strongly on implant geometry, particularly the lead area, exposed lead length, and position of the implant in the phantom. Critical lead tip heating was found for the longer leads. Therefore, to minimize MRI-induced lead tip heating, the PM lead should be as short as possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据