ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
In Vitro Assessment of 3T MRI Effects on Non-3T-Compatible Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) during 3-Tesla (3T) MRI remains uncertain, particularly for devices not designed for 3T use. We experimentally evaluated 3T MRI effects on 3T-compatible and non-3T-compatible CIEDs.
methodsFifty-eight CIEDs (37 pacemakers, 21 ICDs; 3T MRI-conditional n = 31, 1.5-T MRI-conditional n = 14, and non-MRI-conditional n = 13) were tested in a 3T scanner. Each device was immersed in saline with connected leads and programmed to asynchronous or demand pacing with MRI mode ON or OFF. Device interrogation before and after scanning assessed telemetry integrity, parameter retention, and pacing-mode changes.
resultsMost CIEDs completed MRI without malfunction and remained telemetric. However, among pacemakers, telemetry failure or parameter reset occurred in 6 non-MRI-conditional and 3 1.5-T MRI-conditional devices, including some devices with MRI mode ON. Reset or telemetry failure was more frequent in devices with low battery status (≤ 30% to ERI) than in those with higher status (6/11 [55%] vs. 3/22 [14%], p= 0.013). With MRI mode OFF, magnet mode was activated in 11 3T and 7 non-MRI-conditional pacemakers; activation frequency did not differ between asynchronous and demand pacing (16/31 [52%] vs. 18/31 [58%], p= 0.610). In some pacemakers and ICDs, demand pacing led to atrial mode switch or pacing inhibition, but no reset or telemetry failure occurred in ICDs.
conclusionsIn direct in vitro 3T MRI exposure experiments involving non-3T MRI CIEDs, some pacemakers approaching ERI demonstrated an increased risk of telemetry failure or reset, and those with MRI mode turned off showed non-negligible mode switching. However, the majority of devices did not exhibit severe electrical malfunctions necessitating replacement in a clinical setting, and no instances of device reset or telemetry failure were observed in ICDs.
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.