Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22032338›Full record

ReviewJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2011

Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers: era of "MR Conditional" designs.

Jerold S Shinbane, Patrick M Colletti, Frank G Shellock

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. MRI and Implant Safety at Low-Field and Ultralow-Field Strengths.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Practical Approaches to Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures-Clinical Case Series.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System? : A meta-analysis.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2018
    Review
  17. A new look at the heart-novel imaging techniques.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jerold S ShinbaneDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine/Cardiovascular and Thoracic Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. shinbane@usc.edu
Patrick M Colletti
Frank G Shellock
University of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in cardiac device technology have led to the first generation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) conditional devices, providing more diagnostic imaging options for patients with these devices, but also new controversies. Prior studies of pacemakers in patients undergoing MRI procedures have provided groundwork for design improvements. Factors related to magnetic field interactions and transfer of electromagnetic energy led to specific design changes. Ferromagnetic content was minimized. Reed switches were modified. Leads were redesigned to reduce induced currents/heating. Circuitry filters and shielding were implemented to impede or limit the transfer of certain unwanted electromagnetic effects. Prospective multicenter clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of the first generation of MR conditional cardiac pacemakers demonstrated no significant alterations in pacing parameters compared to controls. There were no reported complications through the one month visit including no arrhythmias, electrical reset, inhibition of generator output, or adverse sensations. The safe implementation of these new technologies requires an understanding of the well-defined patient and MR system conditions. Although scanning a patient with an MR conditional device following the strictly defined patient and MR system conditions appears straightforward, issues related to patients with pre-existing devices remain complex. Until MR conditional devices are the routine platform for all of these devices, there will still be challenging decisions regarding imaging patients with pre-existing devices where MRI is required to diagnose and manage a potentially life threatening or serious scenario. A range of other devices including ICDs, biventricular devices, and implantable physiologic monitors as well as guidance of medical procedures using MRI technology will require further biomedical device design changes and testing. The development and implementation of cardiac MR conditional devices will continue to require the expertise and collaboration of multiple disciplines and will need to prove safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness in patient care.

Indexed as

Cardiac Pacing, ArtificialMagnetic Resonance ImagingPacemaker, ArtificialEquipment DesignEquipment FailureEquipment SafetyHumansPatient SafetyPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID22032338
PMCPMC3219582
OpenAlexW1968767111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.