High Ventricular Lead Impedance of a DDD Pacemaker after Cranial Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Baser, Kazim; Güray, Ümit; Durukan, Mine; Demirkan, Burcu

doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03027.x

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the literature is insufficient to evaluate the clinical benefit of performing a focused preoperative evaluation of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, case reports indicate that adverse outcomes (e.g., inappropriate shock, cardiac implantable electronic device switch to "end-of-life mode," acute ventricular lead dysfunction, and corrupted device memory) may occur when a complete preoperative examination is not performed to determine whether the patient has a cardiac implantable electronic device (Category B4-H evidence). [6][7][8][9] The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether preoperatively determining the cardiac implantable electronic device type, manufacturer, and primary indication for placement or determining whether a patient is pacing-dependent affects perioperative outcomes. A case series reported inappropriate antitachycardia pacing or shocks, premature battery depletion, and cardiac implantable electronic device damage when the cardiac implantable electronic device's settings were not adequately assessed preoperatively (Category B4-H evidence).…”

Section: Preoperative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators 2020

Apfelbaum¹,

Schulman²,

Mahajan³

et al. 2020

Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This practice advisory updates the “Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices,” adopted by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 2010 and published in 2011. This updated advisory is intended for use by anesthesiologists and all other individuals who deliver or who are responsible for anesthesia care. The update may also serve as a resource for other physicians and healthcare professionals who manage patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

show abstract

Section: Preoperative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators 2020

Apfelbaum¹,

Schulman²,

Mahajan³

et al. 2020

Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The antenna effect caused a transient increase in pacing threshold (>0.5 V in about 1%−3% of the scans), but in none of these studies was it clinically relevant 8,89,92,93,101 . In some patients, the damaged myocardium clinically presented itself by loss of capture, with or without increased impedance 22,66,102 . A recent meta‐analysis has confirmed the absence of clinically significant events in the patients undergoing MRI despite the transient rise in the pacing threshold minimal effects of heating and myocardial damage associated with leads 98 .…”

Section: Clinical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A comprehensive review

Deshpande

Kella

Padmanabhan

2021

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a commonly used non‐ionizing radiation dependent imaging modality which has an excellent spatial resolution with the capability to provide physiological information. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are used in modern cardiology with a frequency of 1:50 over 75 years of age and nearly one in three people in this population required MRI during their lifetime. Changes in the CIED structure, electronics, and algorithms paired with changes in the protocol design of MRI have created a relatively safe environment for performing MRI in patients with CIED. Despite their documentation in literature and a guideline document from a professional society, significant skepticism exists in doing MRI in patients with CIEDs. We intend to give an overview of interactions between MRI and CIEDs, including the evidence available in this regard and conclude with the suggestion of a protocol for safely carrying out an MRI in patients with CIEDs.

show abstract

“…Pacemaker leads can act as “antennae” which concentrate this radiofrequency energy, producing heat and electrical currents,20 which may cause tissue destruction at the lead tip,21 myocardial stimulation (including life-threatening arrhythmias), and damage to the pulse generator circuitry and battery 22–24. This may produce pacemaker reset, battery depletion, and adverse effects on sensing, pacing thresholds, and lead impedances, causing inappropriate pacing acceleration or inhibition 10,25. Abandoned or fractured leads are especially prone to tip heating 26,27…”

Section: Potential Risks Of Mri In Patients With Conventional Pacemakersmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI-conditional pacemakers: current perspectives

Ferreira¹,

Costa²,

Tralhão³

et al. 2014

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pacing devices has undergone remarkable growth in recent years, and it is estimated that the majority of patients with pacemakers will need an MRI during their lifetime. These investigations will generally be denied due to the potentially dangerous interactions between cardiac devices and the magnetic fields and radio frequency energy used in MRI. Despite the increasing reports of uneventful scanning in selected patients with conventional pacemakers under close surveillance, MRI is still contraindicated in those circumstances and cannot be considered a routine procedure. These limitations prompted a series of modifications in generator and lead engineering, designed to minimize interactions that could compromise device function and patient safety. The resulting MRI-conditional pacemakers were first introduced in 2008 and the clinical experience gathered so far supports their safety in the MRI environment if certain conditions are fulfilled. With this technology, new questions and controversies arise regarding patient selection, clinical impact, and cost-effectiveness. In this review, we discuss the potential risks of MRI in patients with electronic cardiac devices and present updated information regarding the features of MRI-conditional pacemakers and the clinical experience with currently available models. Finally, we provide some guidance on how to scan patients who have these devices and discuss future directions in the field.

show abstract

High Ventricular Lead Impedance of a DDD Pacemaker after Cranial Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators 2020

Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators 2020

MRI in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A comprehensive review

MRI-conditional pacemakers: current perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About