Heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging: reply

Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Central Jutland, Denmark
European Heart Journal (Impact Factor: 14.72). 03/2005; 26(4):376-83; discussion 325-7. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well established as an important diagnostic tool in medicine. However, the presence of a cardiac pacemaker is usually regarded as a contraindication for MRI due to safety reasons. In this study, heating effects at the myocardium-pacemaker lead tip interface have been investigated in a chronic animal model during MRI at 1.5 Tesla.
Pacemaker leads with additional thermocouple wires as temperature sensors were implanted in nine animals. Temperature increases of up to 20 degrees C were measured during MRI of the heart. Significant impedance and minor stimulation threshold changes could be seen. However, pathology and histology could not clearly demonstrate heat-induced damage.
MRI may produce considerable heating at the lead tip. Changes of pacing parameters due to MRI could be seen in chronic experiments. Potential risk of tissue damage cannot be excluded even though no reproducible alterations at the histological level could be found.

Download full-text


Available from: Erik Morre Pedersen, Jul 22, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has unparalleled soft-tissue imaging capabilities. The presence of devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs), however, is historically considered a contraindication to MR imaging. These devices are now smaller, with less magnetic material and improved electromagnetic interference protection. This review summarizes the potential hazards of the device-MR environment interaction, and presents updated information regarding in-vivo and in-vitro experiments. Recent reports on patients with implantable pacemakers and ICDs who underwent MR scan shows that under certain conditions patients with these implanted systems may benefit from this imaging modality. The data presented suggests that certain modern pacemaker and ICD systems may indeed be MR safe. This may have major clinical implications on current imaging practice.
    Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal 02/2005; 5(3):197-209.
  • Source
    European Heart Journal 07/2005; 26(12):1243; author reply 1243-4. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi298 · 14.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. All PM tested were from deceased patients. Reed contact thresholds and reactions were investigated in low 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. 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. 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.
    Europace 08/2005; 7(4):353-65. DOI:10.1016/j.eupc.2005.02.120 · 3.05 Impact Factor
Show more