MRI-conditional devices offer guaranteed safety for patients needing MRI, but widespread adoption faces barriers related to vendor-specific limitations, cost, and education.
Prioritizes MRI-conditional devices to guarantee scan safety; leaves open comparative risk data from higher-level evidence.
Although the risk of MRI scanning on patients with conventional devices is lower than initially thought, the patient's safety can only be guaranteed when using MRI-conditional devices. The most important modifications in MRI-conditional devices include a) Reduction in ferromagnetic components to reduce magnetic attraction and susceptibility artifacts; b) Replacement of the reed switch by a Hall sensor in order to avoid unpredictable reed switch behavior; c) Lead coil design to minimize lead heating and electrical current induction; d) Filter circuitry to prevent damage to the internal power supply; and e) Dedicated pacemaker programming to prevent inappropriate pacemaker inhibition and competing rhythms. Although many companies claim to have MRI-conditional devices, adoption in clinical practice is limited because a) Not all companies have MRI-conditional devices approved for both 1.5 and 3T; b) Not all companies offer the option of unlimited MRI scanning (without an exclusion zone in the thorax); c) Certain companies allow only a 30-min MRI scanning and only in afebrile patients; and d) Despite having MRI-conditional pacemakers, certain companies do not have MRI-conditional defibrillators and CRT systems. It is clear that this new technology opens the door for MRI to a growing number of patients; however, the widespread adoption of MRI-conditional devices will depend on real-life issues, such as cost, clinical indications for such a device and the permanent education of health care professionals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mavrogeni et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: