ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging scanning on different body regions in patients with pacemakers.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Disorders of cardiac rhythm in China.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2024Article
- Safety and performance of MR-conditional pacing systems with automated MRI mode at 1.5 and 3 Tesla.European radiology · 2023Article
- 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a single centre experience.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3.0 T is becoming more common, but there is a lack of sufficient evidence on the safety of a 3.0 T scan in patients with pacemakers. This study aimed to investigate the safety and practical concerns of 3.0 T scans for patients with MR-conditional pacemakers.
methodsTwenty consecutive patients were enrolled. A standardized protocol was developed by cardiologists, pacemaker engineers, and radiologists. Pacemaker interrogation was performed immediately before and after the scan. Scan-related adverse events were documented, and imaging quality was graded as level 1 to 4 by radiologists.
resultsTwenty-three MRI scans of different body regions (brain = 13, lumbar spine = 4, cervical spine = 2, and heart = 4) were performed, and the average time of a scan was 25 ± 11 min. No significant changes in sensing amplitude (atrial 3.1 ± 1.1 mV vs. 2.9 ± 1.2 mV, P = 0.71; ventricular 9.3 ± 3.5 mV vs. 10.2 ± 3.4 mV, P = 0.46), lead impedances (atrial 647 ± 146 Ω vs. 627 ± 151 Ω, P = 0.7; ventricular: 780 ± 247 Ω vs.711 ± 226 Ω, P = 0.36), or pacing threshold (atrial 0.6 ± 0.2 V/0.4 ms vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V/0.4 ms, P = 0.71; ventricular 0.7 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms vs. 0.7 ± 0.2 V/0.4 ms, P = 0.85) were observed pre- and postscan. No adverse events were detected. Image quality review showed grade 1 quality in 16 patients and grade 2 quality in 4 patients with artifacts of pulse generators and leads in cardiac MRI scan and no impact on diagnostic value.
conclusionOur initial data indicated that 3.0 T scanning might be feasible under a standardized protocol with good diagnostic imaging quality irrespective of body region in patients with MR-conditional pacemakers.
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.