Feature | May 15, 2017

Expert Consensus on MRI and Radiation Exposure in Patients With Implantable Cardiac Electronic Devices

At Heart Rhythm 2017, a panel of experts from 11 international organizations share recommendations for health care providers and patient populations exposed to MRI and radiation

HRS released a consensus statement on MRI for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

May 15, 2017 — The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) released a first-of-its-kind consensus statement in the United States on indications of patients who undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiation exposure with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The expert writing group presented the recommendations included in the “2017 HRS Expert Consensus Statement on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Radiation Exposure in Patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices” at Heart Rhythm 2017, the Heart Rhythm Society’s 38th Annual Scientific Sessions.

There is an increasing number of people with CIEDs, and approximately 200,000 pacemakers are implanted in the United States each year.[1] Historically, MRI scanning and radiation exposure for patients with CIEDs has prompted concerns due to their unpredictable effects and interferences in safely and the overall function of the devices. Recent studies have suggested that MRI can be done safely in many patients with magnetic resonance (MR) conditional and nonconditional systems.

The expert consensus statement is intended to help frontline cardiologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and other health care professionals involved in the care of adult and pediatric patients with CIEDs. To further address the issue, the expert writing group also discusses the safety of employees with CIEDs who may come into an MRI environment. 

The document provides guidance on who would be suitable to undergo certain procedures and how to monitor the individuals who are exposed to:
• MRI
• Radiation exposure for CT scans
• Cancer treatment with radiation

“Oftentimes, healthcare providers may recommend removing a device before being exposed to radiation for cancer treatments because of existing safety concerns, but the removal of the device itself could pose risks to the patient,” says Julia Indik, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular disease fellowship program at the University of Arizona, Sarver Heart Center. “We hope that our recommendations will make decisions easier for clinicians and ensure we are delivering optimal patient care while setting the first-ever standard of individualized protocols for patients with these devices.”

Access the full consensus statement document 

The statement includes specific recommendations in the following subsections:
• Introduction and Methodology
• Definitions of CIED Systems in Relation to MRI
• MRI Technology and Relationship to Risk
• MR Conditional CIED Technology
• Management of the CIED Patient Referred for MRI
• Management of the CIED Patient Undergoing CT Imaging
• Management of the CIED Patient Undergoing Radiation Therapy
• Future Directions

The members of the expert writing group performed a comprehensive electronic literature search and then developed a series of recommendations. This was done from randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized observational studies, and case series to support useful and practical recommendations, given that each individual institution serves its patient population uniquely. The writing group also evaluated computational modeling and in vitro and animal studies to explore and identify specific combinations that may pose a higher risk to patients, which cannot be determined by clinical studies alone.

The expert consensus statement was developed in collaboration with 11 international organizations: American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Radiology (ACR), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Council of Affiliated Regional Radiation Oncology Societies (CARROS), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS), Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES), Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardíacas (SOBRAC), and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLAECE).

The document was also published today in the online edition of HeartRhythm, the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society. To review the full document, click here.
 

For more information: www.hrssessions.org

 

Reference:

1. Van Der Zee SA, Doshi SK. Permanent leadless cardiac pacing. Available at http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2016/03/23/08/09/permanent-leadless-cardiac-pacing.

Related Content

New Multimodality Cardiac Imaging Guidelines for Competitive Athletes Created. ASE SCCT and SCMR recommendations for imaging, screening atheletes.
News | Cardiac Imaging | May 11, 2020
May 11, 2020 – Competitive athletes are a rapidly growing population worldwide.
Figure 4 for the study. Images of a 65-year-old man (patient 6). (a) Cardiac MRI perfusion shows perfusion deficit of anterior/anterolateral wall attributed to left anterior descending artery/left circumflex artery (*). (b) CT coronary angiography. (c) Coronary angiography, left anterior oblique projection with caudal angulation. (d) Three-dimensional image fusion helped refine diagnosis: perfusion deficits (*) were most likely caused by narrow first diagonal branch and its first, stented side branch (arrow

Figure 4 for the study. Images of a 65-year-old man (patient 6). (a) Cardiac MRI perfusion shows perfusion deficit of anterior/anterolateral wall attributed to left anterior descending artery/left circumflex artery (*). (b) CT coronary angiography. (c) Coronary angiography, left anterior oblique projection with caudal angulation. (d) Three-dimensional image fusion helped refine diagnosis: perfusion deficits (*) were most likely caused by narrow first diagonal branch and its first, stented side branch (arrowhead). Retrospectively, denoted lesion could also be found at CT coronary angiography and coronary angiography (arrowheads in b and c, respectively). CT FFR = CT-derived fractional flow reserve, LGE = late gadolinium enhancement. Image courtesy of RSNA, Radiology.

News | Cardiac Imaging | May 04, 2020
May 4, 2020 – A new technique that combines computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging MRI can bolster c
An example of a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) exam. The CIAO study looked at patients who have a problem of blood flow limitation and chest pain symptoms in the absence of a 50 percent or more artery narrowing, known as ischemia with no obstructive CAD, or INOCA.

An example of a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) exam. The CIAO study looked at patients who have a problem of blood flow limitation and chest pain symptoms in the absence of a 50 percent or more artery narrowing, known as ischemia with no obstructive CAD, or INOCA.

News | Cardiac Imaging | April 03, 2020
April 3, 2020 — Patients who experience chest pain and have abnormal results on a cardiac stress test but who do not
Schematic depiction of the automated process for assessing fat, muscle, liver, aortic calcification, and bone from original abdominal CT scan data

Figure 1: Depiction of the fully automated CT biomarkers tools used in this study. (A) Schematic depiction of the automated process for assessing fat, muscle, liver, aortic calcification, and bone from original abdominal CT scan data. (B) Case example in an asymptomatic 52-year-old man undergoing CT for colorectal cancer screening. At the time of CT screening, he had a body-mass index of 27·3 and Framingham risk score of 5% (low risk). However, several CT-based metabolic markers were indicative of underlying disease. Multivariate Cox model prediction based on these three CT-based results put the risk of cardiovascular event at 19% within 2 years, at 40% within 5 years, and at 67% within 10 years, and the risk of death at 4% within 2 years, 11% within 5 years, and 27% within 10 years. At longitudinal clinical follow-up, the patient suffered an acute myocardial infarction 3 years after this initial CT and died 12 years after CT at the age of 64 years. (C) Contrast-enhanced CT performed 7 months before death for minor trauma was interpreted as negative but does show significant progression of vascular calcification, visceral fat, and hepatic steatosis. HU=Hounsfield units.

News | Cardiac Imaging | March 06, 2020
March 6, 2020 — Researchers at the National Institutes of Health a
ASNC Announces Multisocietal Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging Consensus
News | Cardiac Imaging | September 09, 2019
The American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) published a new expert consensus document along with eight other...
Philips Debuts Cardiac Ultrasound and Enterprise Informatics Offerings at ESC 2019
News | Cardiac Imaging | August 30, 2019
Philips will showcase its latest cardiac care innovations at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2019,...
A high-fidelity 3-D tractography of the left ventricle heart muscle fibers of a mouse

Figure 1. A high-fidelity 3-D tractography of the left ventricle heart muscle fibers of a mouse from Amsterdam Ph.D. researcher Gustav Strijkers.

News | Cardiac Imaging | June 07, 2019
The Amsterdam University Medical Center has won MR Solutions’ Image of the Year 2019 award for the best molecular...