Work

MRI in Patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices and Fractured or Abandoned Leads

Year: 2024

Type: article

Abstract: Purpose To examine the clinical effect of lead length and lead orientation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and lead fragments or abandoned leads undergoing 1.5-T MRI. Materials and Methods This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant retrospective study included patients with CIEDs and abandoned leads or lead fragments undergoing 1.5-T MRI from March 2014 through July 2020. CIED settings before and after MRI were reviewed, with clinically significant variations defined as a composite of the change in capture threshold of at least 50%, in sensing of at least 40%, or in lead impedance of at least 30% between before MRI and after MRI interrogation. Adverse clinical events were assessed at MRI and up to 30 days after. Univariable and multivariable analysis was performed. Results Eighty patients with 126 abandoned CIED leads or lead fragments underwent 107 1.5-T MRI examinations. Sixty-seven patients (median age, 74 years; IQR, 66–78 years; 44 male patients, 23 female patients) had abandoned leads, and 13 (median age, 66 years; IQR, 52–74 years; nine male patients, four female patients) had lead fragments. There were no reported deaths, clinically significant arrhythmias, or adverse clinical events within 30 days of MRI. Three patients with abandoned leads had a significant change in the composite of capture threshold, sensing, or lead impedance. In a multivariable generalized estimating equation analysis, lead orientation, lead length, MRI type, and MRI duration were not associated with a significant change in the composite outcome. Conclusion Use of 1.5-T MRI in patients with abandoned CIED leads or lead fragments of varying length and orientation was not associated with adverse clinical events. Keywords: Cardiac Assist Devices, MRI, Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024 An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on June 17, 2024

Source: Radiology Cardiothoracic Imaging

DOI: 10.1148/ryct.230303