ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2021
Safety and image quality of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with retained epicardial pacing wires after heart transplantation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delayed intracardiac migration of a retained epicardial pacing wire 14 years after coronary artery bypass grafting presenting with high-burden polymorphic ventricular ectopy: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- MRI safety in patients with abandoned temporary epicardial pacing wires: an eight-year retrospective study : Original Research Article.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging safety in patients with abandoned or functioning epicardial pacing leads.European radiology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTemporary epicardial pacing wires, implemented in patients during heart transplantation, are routinely removed before discharge. However, in some cases, these wires may remain in situ and are often considered as a contraindication for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the future. Therefore, we aimed to provide data about safety and image quality of CMR in these patients.
methodsThis is a report on a subpopulation out of 88 patients after heart transplantation that were included in a prospective cohort study and underwent multiple CMR in their post-transplant course. During CMR, patients were monitored by electrocardiogram and all examinations were observed by a physician to document potential adverse events. Additionally, image quality was assessed by an imaging specialist.
resultsNineteen of 88 patients included had temporary pacing wires in situ. These patients underwent a total of 51 CMR studies. No major adverse event and only one single, mild sensory event could be documented. All CMR studies showed preserved diagnostic image quality. Temporary pacing wires were visible in 100% of HASTE and cine sequences. In less than 50% of the examinations, temporary pacing wires were also visible in T1 and T2 mapping, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) sequences, without any impairment of image quality.
conclusionsWith a low event rate of only one mild adverse event during 51 CMR examinations (2%), CMR appears to be safe in patients with retained temporary epicardial pacing wires after heart transplantation. Moreover, image quality was not impaired by the presence of pacing wires.
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.