Key result
High-energy defibrillation and pacing inside the MRI bore achieve 100% success with minimal pad heating.
Why the study?
Rapid external defibrillation is currently unavailable in the MRI setting, raising patient safety concerns during MRI tests and MRI-guided procedures, especially in cardiovascular disease patients.
Supports feasibility of emergency defibrillation and pacing during CMR; leaves open clinical safety and adoption pending prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Rapid application of external defibrillation, a crucial first-line therapy for ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest, is currently unavailable in the setting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), raising concerns about patient safety during MRI tests and MRI-guided procedures, particularly in patients with cardiovascular diseases. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and safety of defibrillation/pacing for the entire range of clinically useful shock energies inside the MRI bore and during scans, using defibrillation/pacing outside the magnet as a control. METHODS: Experiments were conducted using a commercial defibrillator (LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control, Redmond, Washington, USA) with a custom high-voltage, twisted-pair cable with two mounted resonant floating radiofrequency traps to reduce emission from the defibrillator and the MRI scanner. A total of 18 high-energy (200-360 J) defibrillation experiments were conducted in six swine on a 1.5 T MRI scanner outside the magnet bore, inside the bore, and during scanning, using adult and pediatric defibrillation pads. Defibrillation was followed by cardiac pacing (with capture) in a subset of two animals. Monitored signals included: high-fidelity temperature (0.01 °C, 10 samples/sec) under the pads and 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) using an MRI-compatible ECG system. RESULTS: Defibrillation/pacing was successful in all experiments. Temperature was higher during defibrillation inside the bore and during scanning compared with outside the bore, but the differences were small (ΔT: 0.5 and 0.7 °C, p = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). During scans, temperature after defibrillation tended to be higher for pediatric vs. adult pads (p = 0.08). MR-image quality (signal-to-noise ratio) decreased by ~ 10% when the defibrillator was turned on. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of in-bore defibrillation for the full range of defibrillation energies used in clinical practice, as well as of transcutaneous cardiac pacing inside the MRI bore. Methods for Improving MR-image quality in the presence of a working defibrillator require further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shusterman et al. (2019) studied Ventricular fibrillation (induced) (n=6). High-energy external defibrillation and transcutaneous pacing inside MRI bore vs. Defibrillation outside the magnet bore was evaluated on Defibrillation success and temperature change under pads. High-energy external defibrillation (200-360 J) and transcutaneous pacing inside the MRI bore were successful in all experiments, with only small temperature increases under the pads compared to outside the bore (ΔT: 0.5 and 0.7 °C, p=0.01 and 0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: