PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 4, 2026Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology0 citations

Metal Artifact Assessment of Multiple MRI-conditional Pacing and Defibrillation Leads: A Phantom Study Comparing Different Manufacturers

SMShiro MasudaSOShuhei OgitaHAHaruka Aoyagi

Key Result

Fast gradient echo (FGRE) sequences produced larger metal artifacts than balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences for all tested pacing and defibrillation leads.

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the impact of different pacing and defibrillation leads on metal artifacts in cardiac MRI.
  • Conducted a phantom study comparing four types of pacing and defibrillation leads.
  • Leads were fixed and positioned along X, Y, Z axes to acquire short-axis images using balanced SSFP and FGRE methods.
  • Measured artifact area and increase rate for each lead and performed visual evaluations of the images.
  • FGRE method showed a tendency for larger artifact area and increase rate than balanced SSFP across all leads.
  • Median artifact area for pacing leads was 152.02 mm² and 5024.27% increase, while for defibrillation leads it was 114.43 mm² and 2073.16%.
  • Visual assessment indicated significantly larger metal artifacts for some defibrillation leads than others.

Structured PICO

Do different manufacturers of MRI-conditional pacing and defibrillation leads produce different metal artifacts on cardiac MRI?

P
Population
Phantom study evaluating metal artifacts from 4 pacing and 4 defibrillation leads using 1.5T MRI.
E
Exposure
Cardiac MRI using balanced steady-state free precession (balanced SSFP) and fast gradient echo (FGRE) sequences
C
Comparator
Comparison among different lead manufacturers
O
Outcome
Metal artifact area (S0) and increase rate (ΔS)surrogate

While pacing leads produce consistent MRI metal artifacts across manufacturers, defibrillation leads exhibit significant variability, likely due to structural differences.

Limitations

  • Evaluated using only a 1.5 T MRI scanner, so 3.0 T characteristics remain unknown
  • Limited number of lead models evaluated
  • In vitro phantom study that may not fully replicate in vivo conditions
  • Did not evaluate artifacts from the device generator

Abstract

【目的】本研究は,ペーシングリードおよび除細動リードを各4種類用いて,心臓magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)における金属アーチファクトを評価し,リードの違いが画像に及ぼす影響を明らかにすることを目的とした.【方法】ファントム内にリードを固定し,X・Y・Z軸に平行に配置して短軸像を取得した.Balanced steady-state free precession(balanced SSFP)法とfast gradient echo(FGRE)法で撮像し,アーチファクト面積(S 0 )と増加率(ΔS)を求めた.各リードについて3軸のうち最大値を用いてリード間で比較した.また短軸像による視覚評価を行った.【結果】物理評価では,S 0 とΔSはいずれもすべてのリードでFGREはbalanced SSFPより大きい傾向を示した.各リードの最大値を用いた中央値(範囲)は,ペーシングリードのS 0 およびΔSで152.02 mm 2 (119.17–183.49)および5024.27%(4562.10–6956.83)であり,除細動リードでは114.43 mm 2 (79.51–148.11)および2073.16%(1398.30–3561.46)であった.視覚評価では,balanced SSFPおよびFGREにおいて,一部の除細動リードで金属アーチファクトは有意に大きかった.【結語】ペーシングリードはリード間の差が小さい傾向を示したのに対し,除細動リードの一部でリード間に差を認め,構造的要因の関与が示唆された.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

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.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a211d8cd499ed480b170fe5https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.26-1592
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper