ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
An Interchangeability Test Method for Developing IPG Impedance Equivalency Evidence for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Under MRI.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. 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.
- An Interchangeability Test Method for Developing IPG Impedance Equivalency Evidence for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Under MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) may receive replacement device components over time, resulting in mixed-manufacturer systems that pose unknown, potentially higher risk under MRI exposure. It is not clear how to efficiently evaluate whether adding a non-original implantable pulse generator (IPG) changes the system's radiofrequency (RF)-induced heating response. This study aimed to develop a least-burdensome RF safety evaluation method for MR Conditional labeling of CIEDs. Critical parameters were characterized and demonstrated as an IPG equivalency test method that supports leveraging existing single-manufacturer MR-Conditional labeling for mixed-manufacturer systems.
methodsThe transfer function model of the pacing lead was measured using the original system (Lead
resultsLead tip heating was not significantly different between original and third-party IPGs configurations (p < 0.001). RF-induced heating responses were outside of measurement uncertainty when the lead was connected with a 50 Ω resistor and some open-end conditions. The results showed that small changes in IPG impedance (< 2.5 Ω) to the lead-IPG system impedance (> 80.2 Ω) may not significantly alter RF-induced heating, remaining within measurement uncertainties.
conclusionA simplified IPG impedance equivalency test has been developed to facilitate MRI access for patients with CIEDs that undergo IPG interchange. This test aids assessment of whether replacing an original IPG model with a different model may significantly increase RF-induced heating compared to the original system.
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.