Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Published in: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Artefacts in 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers

Authors: Daniel Kiblboeck, Christian Reiter, Juergen Kammler, Pierre Schmit, Hermann Blessberger, Joerg Kellermair, Franz Fellner, Clemens Steinwender

Published in: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There are limited data on patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCP) undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. The aim of this prospective, single-center, observational study was to evaluate artefacts on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images in patients with LCP.

Methods

Fifteen patients with Micra™ LCP, implanted at least 6 weeks prior to CMR scan, were enrolled and underwent either 1.5 Tesla or 3 Tesla CMR imaging. Artefacts were categorized into grade 1 (excellent image quality), grade 2 (good), grade 3 (poor) and grade 4 (non-diagnostic) for each myocardial segment. One patient was excluded because of an incomplete CMR investigation due to claustrophobia.

Results

LCP caused an arc-shaped artefact (0.99 ± 0.16 cm2) at the right ventricular (RV) apex. Of 224 analyzed myocardial segments of the left ventricle (LV) 158 (70.5%) were affected by grade 1, 27 (12.1%) by grade 2, 17 (7.6%) by grade 3 and 22 (9.8%) by grade 4 artefacts. The artefact burden of grade 3 and 4 artefacts was significantly higher in the 3 Tesla group (3 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla: 3.7 ± 1.6 vs 1.9 ± 1.4 myocardial segments per patient, p = 0.03). A high artefact burden was particularly observed in the mid anteroseptal, inferoseptal and apical septal myocardial segments of the LV and in the mid and apical segments of the RV. Quantification of LV function and assessment of valves were feasible in all patients. We did not observe any clinical or device-related adverse events.

Conclusion

CMR imaging in patients with LCP is feasible with excellent to good image quality in the majority of LV segments. The artefact burden is comparable small allowing an accurate evaluation of LV function, cardiac structures and valves. However, artefacts in the mid anteroseptal, inferoseptal and apical septal myocardial segments of the LV due to the LCP may impair or even exclude diagnostic evaluation of these segments. Artefacts on CMR images may be reduced by the use of 1.5 Tesla CMR scanners.
Literature
1.
Penell DJ. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation. 2010;121(5):692–705.CrossRef
2.
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt OA, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2013;15(8):1070–118.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD, Anderson JL, Arshad A, Biederman RW, et al. Assessing the risks associated with MRI in patients with a pacemaker or defibrillator. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(8):755–64.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Strom JB, Whelan JB, Shen C, Zheng SQ, Mortele KJ, Kramer DB. Safety and utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(8):1138–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Shah AD, Patel AU, Knezevic A, Hoskins MH, Hirsh DS, Merchant FM, et al. Clinical performance of magnetic resonance imaging conditional and nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40(5):467–75.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bertelsen L, Petersen HH, Philbert BT, Svendsen JH, Thomsen C, Vejlstrup N. Safety of magnetic resonance scanning without monitoring of patients with pacemakers. Europace. 2017;19(5):818–23.PubMed
8.
Camacho JC, Moreno CC, Shah AD, Mittal PK, Mengistu A, Lloyd MS, et al. Safety and quality of 1.5-T MRI in patients with conventional and MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices after implementation of a standardized protocol. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(3):599–604.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Horwood L, Attili A, Luba F, Ibrahim EH, Parmar H, Stojanovska J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices: focus on contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging protocols. Europace. 2017;19(5):812–7.PubMed
10.
Lowe MD, Plummer CJ, Mainsty CH, Linker NJ, British Heart Rhythm Society. Safe use of MRI in people with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Heart. 2015;101(24):1950–3.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kypta A, Blessberger H, Hoenig S, Saleh K, Lambert T, Kammler J, et al. Clinical safety of an MRI conditional implantable cardioverter defibrillator system: a prospective monocenter ICD-magnetic resonance imaging feasibility study (MIMI). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(3):574–84.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Tjong FV, Reddy VY. Permanent leadless cardiac pacemaker therapy: a comprehensive review. Circulation. 2017;135(15):1458–70.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kiehl EL, Cantillon DJ. Leadless cardiac pacing: what primary care providers and non-EP cardiologists should know. Cleve Clin J Med. 2016;83(11 Suppl 2):S24–34.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
16.
Kypta A, Blessberger H, Kiblboeck D, Steinwender C. Three tesla cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a leadless cardiac pacemaker system. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(34):2628.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Flamm SD, Kim RJ, Nagel E. Society of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Board of trustees task force on standardized protocols. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocols 2013 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. Circulation. 2002;105:539–42.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Klein-Wiele O, Garmer M, Busch M, Mateiescu S, Urbien R, Barbone G, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with magnetic resonance conditional pacemaker systems at 1.5T: influence of pacemaker related artefacts on image quality including first pass perfusion, aortic and mitral valve assessment, flow measurement, short tau inversion recovery and T1-weighted imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33(3):383–94.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Soejima K, Edmonson J, Ellingson ML, Herberg B, Wiklund C, Zhao J. Safety evaluation of a leadless pacemaker for magnetic resonance imaging use. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(10):2056–63.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sasaki T, Hansford R, Zviman MM, Kolandaivelu A, Bluemke DA, Berger RD, et al. Quantitative assessment of artifacts on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:662–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Auricchio A, Delnoy PP, Butter C, Brachmann J, Van Erven L, Spitzer S, et al. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the wireless stimulation endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace. 2014;16(5):681–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Tjong FV, Brouwer TF, Smeding L, Kooiman KM, de Groot JR, Ligon D, et al. Combined leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy: feasibility, safety, and performance. Europace. 2016;18(11):1740–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Keller J, Neuzil P, Vymazal J, Janotka M, Brada J, Zacek R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Europace. 2015;17(5):761–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Artefacts in 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers
Authors
Daniel Kiblboeck
Christian Reiter
Juergen Kammler
Pierre Schmit
Hermann Blessberger
Joerg Kellermair
Franz Fellner
Clemens Steinwender
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1532-429X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-018-0469-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Prognostic value of myocardial strain and late gadolinium enhancement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy with moderate to severely reduced ejection fraction

Research

Feasibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance to detect oxygenation deficits in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease triggered by breathing maneuvers

Research

Effect of isolated left bundle-branch block on biventricular volumes and ejection fraction: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment

Research

Noninvasive hematocrit assessment for cardiovascular magnetic resonance extracellular volume quantification using a point-of-care device and synthetic derivation

Technical notes

Regional assessment of carotid artery pulse wave velocity using compressed sensing accelerated high temporal resolution 2D CINE phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Research

Age-related changes of right atrial morphology and inflow pattern assessed using 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance: results of a population-based study