ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2018
Evaluation of the safety of MRI scans in patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker implantation.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of pulse-gated non-enhanced rapid magnetic resonance imaging in the definitive diagnosis of aortic dissection.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker (Medtronic's EnRhythm MRI SureScan IPG (implantable pulse generator) and CapSureFix MRI pacing electrodes) implantation were evaluated. A total of 86 patients undergoing this pacemaker implantation who were admitted to Huanggang Hospital from June 2006 to March 2017 were continuously selected. On average 6.8±2.3 months after the implantation, the first MRI scan was conducted. The mean scan time was 2.2±0.9 and mean duration was 45.6±12.3 min; mean follow-up visit period was 40.5±15.6 months, and after follow-up, all the abnormal symptoms of patients and pacemaker abnormalities after scans were recorded. Causes of receiving MRI scans included neurological diseases (27%), spinal diseases (14%), cancers (26%), joint injuries (25%) and visceral systems (8%). A total of 12 cases (14.0%) showed significant discomfort symptoms, 10 cases (11.6%) showed pacemaker abnormalities, and the incidence rate was 25.6%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the basic types of cardiovascular diseases, dependence on pacemakers, duration of education, pacing threshold, impedance and MRI scan time were related to the occurrence of adverse scan results (p<0.05). In conclusion, MRI scans show that MRI-compatible dual-chamber pacemaker was relatively safe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.