Key result
FGRE sequences produce larger metal artifacts than SSFP sequences for pacing and defibrillation leads.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate metallic artifacts on cardiac MRI across four types each of pacing and defibrillation leads to clarify how lead differences impact images.
Do different manufacturers of MRI-conditional pacing and defibrillation leads produce different metal artifacts on cardiac MRI?
Do different manufacturers of MRI-conditional pacing and defibrillation leads produce different metal artifacts on cardiac MRI?
While pacing leads produce consistent MRI metal artifacts across manufacturers, defibrillation leads exhibit significant variability, likely due to structural differences.
Artifact differences by sequence and lead type warrant caution in protocol selection; leaves open clinical impact of manufacturer variability in defibrillation leads.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Masuda et al. (2026) studied MRI metal artifacts from cardiac implantable electronic devices (n=8). MRI sequences (balanced SSFP vs FGRE) and different lead models was evaluated on Artifact area (S0) and increase rate (ΔS). Fast gradient echo (FGRE) sequences produced larger metal artifacts than balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences for all tested pacing and defibrillation leads.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: