MRT bei Patienten mit Herzschrittmachern: In-vitro- und In-vivo-Evaluierung bei 0,5 Tesla

Sommer, T.; Lauck, Gerhard; Schimpf, Rémy; Smekal, Alexander; Wolke, S.; Block, Walter F.; Gieseke, J; Schneider, Constantin; Funke, Harald; Schild, H

doi:10.1055/s-2007-1015179

Cited by 26 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the largest reported series to date, Sommer et al studied 14 pacemaker models in vitro and 18 patients undergoing magnetic resonance scanning at 0•5 Tesla with standard spin, turbo spin, and gradient echo sequences [14] . All pacemakers switched to the asynchronous mode due to activation of the reed switch in the static magnetic field in vitro.…”

Section: Human Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, the torque levels were significantly reduced in modern pacemakers. Pacemaker displacement by the magnetic force of the magnetic resonance equipment was not reported in any of the published studies [9][10][11][12][13][14] .…”

Section: Potential Problems In Magnetic Resonance Imaging Equipmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the previous studies that prohibit magnetic resonance imaging in pacemaker patients were based on in vitro and animal model data from the 1980's using older pacemaker and lead technology [1][2][3] . More recent anecdotal reports describe a small series of pacemaker patients who have safely undergone magnetic resonance scanning (Table 2) [9][10][11][12][13][14] . These studies were performed in patients for whom magnetic resonance imaging was considered to be an absolute diagnostic necessity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pacing in magnetic resonance imaging environment: Clinical and technical considerations on compatibility

Duru

Luechinger²,

Scheidegger³

et al. 2001

European Heart Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Human Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Problems In Magnetic Resonance Imaging Equipmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pacing in magnetic resonance imaging environment: Clinical and technical considerations on compatibility

Duru

Luechinger²,

Scheidegger³

et al. 2001

European Heart Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… 39 114 – 0.5 Sommer et al . 36 Sommer et al . 37 18 44 Reed switch activation, continuous pacing in the static field – Valhaus et al .…”

Section: Clinical Trials On Magnetic Resonance Imaging In Patients Wimentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: how far have we come?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has long been regarded a general contraindication in patients with cardiovascular implanted electronic devices such as cardiac pacemakers or cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) due to the risk of severe complications and even deaths caused by interactions of the magnetic resonance (MR) surrounding and the electric devices. Over the last decade, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms responsible for such potentially life-threatening complications as well as technical advances have allowed an increasing number of pacemaker and ICD patients to safely undergo MRI. This review lists the key findings from basic research and clinical trials over the last 20 years, and discusses the impact on current day clinical practice. With ‘MR-conditional’ devices being the new standard of care, MRI in pacemaker and ICD patients has been adopted to clinical routine today. However, specific precautions and specifications of these devices should be carefully followed if possible, to avoid patient risks which might appear with new MR technology and further increasing indications and patient numbers.

show abstract

Implantable spinal fusion stimulator: Assessment of MR safety and artifacts

Shellock

Hatfield

Simon³

et al. 2000

J. Magn. Reson. Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this investigation was to perform magnetic resonance (MR) imaging safety and artifact testing of an implantable spinal fusion stimulator. Magnetic field interactions, artifacts, and operational aspects of an implantable spinal fusion stimulator were evaluated in association with a 1.5 T MR system. Magnetic field‐related translational attraction was measured using the deflection angle test. A special test apparatus was used to determine torque at 4.7 T. Artifacts were characterized using fast multiplanar spoiled gradient‐echo, T1‐weighted spin‐echo, and T1‐weighted fast spin‐echo sequences. Operational aspects of the implantable spinal fusion stimulator before and after exposure to MR imaging at 1.5 T were assessed. In addition, nine patients (six lumbar spine and three cervical spine) with implantable spinal fusion stimulators underwent MR imaging. The findings indicated that magnetic field interactions were relatively minor, artifacts were well characterized and should not create diagnostic problems, and there were no changes in the operation of the spinal fusion stimulator. The nine patients underwent MR procedures without substantial adverse events or complaints. Based on the results of this investigation and in consideration of the findings from previous studies of MR imaging safety for the implantable spinal fusion stimulator, MR imaging may be performed safely in patients using MR systems operating at 1.5 T or less following specific recommendations and precautions. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2000;12:214–223. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

MRT bei Patienten mit Herzschrittmachern: In-vitro- und In-vivo-Evaluierung bei 0,5 Tesla

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Pacing in magnetic resonance imaging environment: Clinical and technical considerations on compatibility

Pacing in magnetic resonance imaging environment: Clinical and technical considerations on compatibility

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: how far have we come?

Implantable spinal fusion stimulator: Assessment of MR safety and artifacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About