Why the study?
Experience regarding vasodilator-stress CMR and resulting device artifacts on perfusion images remains limited as the number of patients with CIEDs increases.
Does a modified spoiled gradient-echo (sGE) protocol improve CMR image quality compared to conventional SSFP in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Does a modified spoiled gradient-echo (sGE) protocol improve CMR image quality compared to conventional SSFP in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Myocardial perfusion imaging by CMR is safe and feasible in patients with CIEDs, and a sGE-based protocol reduces artifacts compared to SSFP, especially in patients with left-sided ICDs, CRT-Ds, or S-ICDs.
Supports sGE perfusion CMR in CIED patients; hypothesis-generating for diagnostic gains, requiring randomized validation.
AIMS: The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing. However, there is limited experience regarding vasodilator-stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and resulting device artifacts on perfusion images. The aim of this study was to determine CMR image quality in patients with different CIED types for CMR-based perfusion stress testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 156 patients with active CIEDs underwent CMR on a 1.5-Tesla scanner. Both conventional steady-state-free-precession (SSFP) and modified spoiled gradient-echo (sGE) protocols under stress and resting conditions were used to evaluate image artifacts in a 16-segment segment model of the heart. The study group comprised 39% conventional pacemaker (PM), 4% cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P), 38% conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), 6% cardiac resynchronization therapy-ICD (CRT-D), and 13% subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) patients. PM-carriers showed only minor image artifacts in both perfusion protocols. Artifacts caused by ICDs were predominantly located in the left-ventricular (LV) inferolateral and anterior segments. S-ICDs showed the highest extent of artifacts with an anterolateral accentuation. The artifact extent was significantly reduced when sGE-based perfusion was used compared to SSFP-based sequences. 69% of the patients received a stress-perfusion protocol, and elective coronary angiography confirmed the presence of coronary stenosis in three cases. No major safety-relevant issues occurred. CONCLUSION: Myocardial perfusion imaging by CMR is safe and feasible with moderate-to-high image quality in patients with all types of CIEDs, including non-conditional devices, ICDs, and S-ICDs. A sGE-based perfusion protocol should be preferred in patients with left-sided ICDs, CRT-Ds, or S-ICDs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meier et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: