ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Nurse practitioner-led CIED monitoring during MRI in pediatric and adult patients with congenital heart disease.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent evidence shows minimal risk to patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), even those with MRI non-conditional devices or epicardial and/or abandoned leads. Objective: We report our experience with peri-MRI device care for pediatric and adult patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) provided by pediatric electrophysiology (EP) nurse practitioner(s) (NP). Methods: Retrospective study of pediatric and adult patients with CHD with CIEDs undergoing MRI between November 2022 and February 2025. An International Board of Heart Rhythm Examiners device certified NP led the service, determined CIED MRI compatibility and risk, determined programming for scan and provided patient rhythm monitoring for non-conditional devices. EP NPs provided pre and post-MRI evaluation and programming conditional devices. Full interrogation was completed prior and immediately after MRI. Results: There were 28 patients who underwent MRI with CIED; median age 21.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 18-23; range 0.5-37) years. Epicardial pacemakers (PM) in 15 (53%), transvenous PM or ICD in 11 (40%), and S-ICD in 2 (7%). 7 patients (25%) had abandoned leads. 18 CIEDs (65%) were MRI non-conditional. No patient had clinically significant change in lead parameters, concerning arrhythmia or patient reported symptoms during MRI scan. The median NP time provided in MRI for a patient requiring continuous monitoring, n = 22 (79%), was 100 minutes (IQR 80-129). Conclusion: EP NP provided peri-MRI device management can be a successful and physician adjacent service. There were no adverse outcomes including lead measurement changes, patient reported symptoms or arrhythmia for patients which was consistent with prior studies. Time spent in MRI does not include time for preliminary assessment and determination of risk.
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.