Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate safety and diagnostic value of 1.5-T MRI in carriers of conventional pacemaker (cPM) or conventional implantable defibrillator (cICD).

Methods

We prospectively compared cPM/cICD-carriers undergoing MRI (study group, SG), excluding those device-dependent or implanted <6 weeks before enrolment or prior to 01/01/2000, with cPM/cICD-carriers undergoing chest x-ray, CT or follow-up (reference group, RG).

Results

142 MRI (55 cardiac) were performed in 120 patients with cPM (n=71) or cICD (n=71). In the RG 98 measurements were performed in 95 patients with cPM (n=40) or cICD (n=58). No adverse events were observed. No MRI prolonged/interrupted. All cPM/cICD were correctly reprogrammed after MRI without malfunctions. One temporary communication failure was observed in one cPM-carrier. Immediately after MRI, 12/14 device interrogation parameters did not change significantly (clinically negligible changes of battery voltage and cICD charging time), without significant variations for SG versus RG. Three–12 months after MRI, 9/11 device interrogation parameters did not change significantly (clinically negligible changes of battery impedance/voltage). Non-significant changes of three markers of myocardial necrosis. Non-cardiac MRI: 82/87 diagnostic without artefacts; 4/87 diagnostic with artefacts; 1/87 partially diagnostic. Cardiac MRI: in cPM-carriers, 14/15 diagnostic with artefacts, 1/15 partially diagnostic; in cICD-carriers, 9/40 diagnostic with artefacts, 22 partially diagnostic, nine non-diagnostic.

Conclusions

A favourable risk-benefit ratio of 1.5-T MRI in cPM/cICD carriers was reported.

Key points

• Cooperation between radiologists and cardiac electrophysiologists allowed safe 1.5-T MRI in cPM/cICD-carriers.

• No adverse events for 142 MRI in 71 cPM-carriers and 71 cICD-carriers.

• Ninety-nine per cent (86/87) of non-cardiac MRI in cPM/cICD-carriers were diagnostic.

• All cPM-carrier cardiac MRIs had artefacts, 14 examinations diagnostic, 1 partially diagnostic.

• Twenty-three per cent (9/40) of cardiac MRI in cICD-carriers were non-diagnostic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hundley WG, Bluemke DA, Finn JP et al (2010) ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 expert consensus document on cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2614–2662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pompan DC (2011) Appropriate use of MRI for evaluating common musculoskeletal conditions. Am Fam Physician 83:883–884

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Akin O, Brennan SB, Dershaw DD et al (2012) Advances in oncologic imaging: update on 5 common cancers. CA Cancer J Clin 62:364–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burke JF, Gelb DJ, Quint DJ, Morgenstern LB, Kerber KA (2013) The impact of MRI on stroke management and outcomes: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 19:987–993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Castillo M (2014) History and evolution of brain tumor imaging: insights through radiology. Radiology 273:S111–S125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalin R, Stanton MS (2005) Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 28:326–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Levine GN, Gomes AS, Arai AE et al (2007) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 116:2878–2891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roguin A (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:556–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nordbeck P, Ertl G, Ritter O (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging safety in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: how far have we come? Eur Heart J 36:1505–1511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Nazarian S, Reynolds MR, Ryan MP et al (2016) Utilization and likelihood of radiologic diagnostic imaging in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:115–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Faris OP, Shein MJ (2005) Government viewpoint: U.S. Food & Drug Administration: pacemakers, ICDs and MRI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 28:268–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Faris OP, Shein M (2006) Food and Drug Administration perspective: magnetic resonance imaging of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Circulation 114:1232–1233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shellock FG, Crues JV III (2002) MR safety and the American College of Radiology white paper. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1349–1352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. American Society for Testing and Materials (2005) Standard practice for Marking Medical Devices and Other Items for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance Environment (ASTM F2503-05). Available at: http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/F2503-05.htm. Accessed on Sept 3, 2016.

  15. Expert panel on MR safety, Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C et al (2013) ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:501–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sutton R, Kanal E, Wilkoff BL et al (2008) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of patients with a new Medtronic EnRhythm MRI SureScan pacing system: clinical study design. Trials 9:68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilkoff BL, Bello D, Taborsky M et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a pacemaker system designed for the magnetic resonance environment. Heart Rhythm 8:65–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gimbel JR, Bello D, Schmitt M, Advisa MRI system Study Investigators et al (2013) Randomized trial of pacemaker and lead system for safe scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Heart Rhythm 10:685–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wollmann CG, Thudt K, Kaiser B et al (2014) Safe performance of magnetic resonance of the heart in patients with magnetic resonance conditional pacemaker systems: the safety issue of the ESTIMATE study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 16:30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. van der Graaf AW, Bhagirath P, de Hooge J et al (2015) Non-invasive focus localization, right ventricular epicardial potential mapping in patients with an MRI-conditional pacemaker system - a pilot study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 44:227–234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Shenthar J, Milasinovic G, Al Fagih A et al (2015) MRI scanning in patients with new and existing CapSureFix Novus 5076 pacemaker leads: randomized trial results. Heart Rhythm 12:759–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Savouré A, Mechulan A, Burban M, Olivier A, Lazarus A (2015) The Kora pacemaker is safe and effective for magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Med Insights Cardiol 12;9:85–90

  23. Klein-Wiele O, Garmer M, Urbien et al (2015) Feasibility and safety of adenosine cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with MR conditional pacemaker systems at 1.5 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17:112

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Wakeel N, Oh-Ici D, Schmitt KR et al (2016) Cardiac MRI in patients with complex CHD following primary or secondary implantation of MRI-conditional pacemaker system. Cardiol Young 26:306–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Raphael CE, Vassiliou V, Alpendurada F et al (2016) Clinical value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with MR-conditional pacemakers. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:1178–1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nakai T, Kurokawa S, Ikeya Y et al (2016) MRI mode Programming for safe magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a magnetic resonance conditional cardiac device. Int Heart J 57:173–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Camacho JC, Moreno CC, Shah AD et al (2016) Safety and quality of 1.5T MRI in patients with conventional and MRI-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices after implementation of a standardized protocol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:599–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dandamudi S, Collins JD, Carr J et al (2016) The safety of cardiac and thoracic magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Acad Radiol 23:1498–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hwang YM, Kim J, Lee JH et al (2016) Cardiac implantable electronic device safety during magnetic resonance imaging. Korean Circ J46:804–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Acha MR, Keaney JJ, Lubitz SA et al (2015) Increased perforation risk with an MRI-conditional pacing lead: a single-center study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 38:334–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kwon CH, Choi JH, Kim J et al (2016) Complications of cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement with an MRI-conditional pacing lead: a Korean multi-center experience. J Korean Med Sci 31:1397–1402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. United States Food and Drug Administration website (2015) September 2015 PMA supplemental approvals. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/ucm472791.htm Updated November 16, 2015. Accessed on September 2, 2016

  33. Cohen JD, Costa HS, Russo RJ (2012) Determining the risks of magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla for patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Am J Cardiol 110:1631–1636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Muehling OM, Wakili R, Greif M et al (2014) Immediate and 12 months follow up of function and lead integrity after cranial MRI in 356 patients with conventional cardiac pacemakers. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 16:39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Buendía F, Cano Ó, Sánchez-Gómez JM et al (2011) Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T in patients with cardiac rhythm devices. Europace 13:533–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Naehle CP, Kreuz J, Strach K et al (2011) Safety, feasibility, and diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverters/defibrillators at 1.5 T. Am Heart J 161:1096–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sasaki T, Hansford R, Zviman MM et al (2011) Quantitative assessment of artifacts on cardiac magnetic resonance Imaging of patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 4:662–670

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Roguin A, Schwitter J, Vahlhaus C et al. (2008) ESC Position paper – Magnetic Resonance imaging in individuals with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems. Europace 2008;10:336–346.

  39. Gimbel JR (2009) Unexpected asystole during 3T magnetic resonance imaging of a pacemaker-dependent patient with a 'modern' pacemaker. Europace 11:1241–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sommer T, Naehle CP, Yang A et al (2006) Strategy for safe performance of extrathoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla in the presence of cardiac pacemakers in non–Pacemaker-dependent patients A prospective study with 115 examinations. Circulation 114:1285–1292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roguin A, Zviman MM, Meininger GR et al (2004) Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T. Circulation 110:475–482

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lelakowski J, Majewski J, Bednarek J, Małecka B, Zabek A (2007) Pacemaker dependency after pacemaker implantation. Cardiol J 14:83–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin ET, Coman JA, Shellock FG et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-Tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:1315–1324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gimbel JR, Kanal E, Schwartz KM, Wilkoff BL (2005) Outcome of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 28:270–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nazarian S, Roguin A, Zviman MM et al (2006) Clinical utility and safety of a protocol for noncardiac and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable-cardioverter defibrillators at 1.5 tesla. Circulation 114:1277–1284

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Gimbel JR, Kanal E (2004) Can patients with implantable pacemakers safely undergo magnetic resonance imaging? J Am Coll Cardiol 43:1325–1327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD et al (2017) Assessing the risks associated with MRI in patients with a pacemaker or defibrillator. N Engl J Med 376:755–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Phelps AS, Naeger DM, Courtier JL et al (2015) Pairwise comparison versus Likert scale for biomedical image assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:8–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nazarian S, Hansford R, Roguin A et al (2011) A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med 155:415–424

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Naehle CP, Zeijlemaker V, Thomas D et al (2009) Evaluation of cumulative effects of MR imaging on pacemaker systems at 1.5 Tesla. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 32:1526–1535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bernstein AD, Camm AJ, Fisher JD et al (1993) North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology policy statement. NASPE/BPEG defibrillator code. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 16:1776–1780

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bernstein AD, Daubert JC, Fletcher RD et al (2002) The revised NASPE/BPEG generic code for antibradycardia, adaptive-rate, and multisite pacing. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology/British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 25:260–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M, Lucca J (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators without specific absorption rate restrictions. Europace 12:947–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Halshtok O, Goitein O, Abu Sham’a R et al (2010) Pacemakers and magnetic resonance imaging: no longer an absolute contraindication when scanned correctly. Isr Med Assoc J 12:391–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Buendía F, Sánchez-Gómez JM, Sancho-Tello MJ et al (2010) Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacing devices. Rev Esp Cardiol 63:735–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Naehle CP, Strach K, Thomas D et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5T in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:549–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M, Lucca J (2008) Cardiac biomarkers in patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators undergoing an MRI scan. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 31:1241–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Naehle CP, Meyer C, Thomas D et al (2008) Safety of brain 3-T MR imaging with transmit-receive head coil in patients with cardiac pacemakers: pilot prospective study with 51 examinations. Radiology 249:991–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Strom JB, Whelan JB, Shen C et al. (2017) Safety and utility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2017 Apr 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.03.039.

  60. Shah AD, Patel AU, Knezevic A et al. (2017) Clinical performance of magnetic resonance imaging conditional and nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2017 Feb 22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.13060.

  61. Forleo GB, Santini L, Della Rocca DG et al (2010) Safety and efficacy of a new magnetic resonance imaging-compatible pacing system: early results of a prospective comparison with conventional dual-chamber implant outcomes. Heart Rhythm 7:750–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, Prassopoulos P (2001) MR enteroclysis protocol optimization: comparison between 3D FLASH with fat saturation after intravenous gadolinium injection and true FISP sequences. Eur Radiol 11:908–913

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Olivieri LJ, Cross RR, O'Brien KE, Ratnayaka K, Hansen MS (2015) Optimized protocols for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with thoracic metallic implants. Pediatr Radiol 45:1455–1464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Schwitter J, Gold MR, Al Fagih A et al. (2016) Image quality of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator system designed for the magnetic resonance imaging environment. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 9(5)

  65. Rashid S, Rapacchi S, Vaseghi M et al (2014) Improved late gadolinium enhancement MR imaging for patients with implanted cardiac devices. Radiology 270:269–274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Stevens SM, Tung R, Rashid S et al (2014) Device artifact reduction for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and ventricular tachycardia: late gadolinium enhancement correlation with electroanatomic mapping. Heart Rhythm 11:289–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ranjan R, McGann CJ, Jeong EK et al (2015) Wideband late gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for imaging myocardial scar without image artefacts induced by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a feasibility study at 3 T. Europace 17:483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Coman JA, Martin ET, Sandler DA, Thomas JR (2004) Implantable cardiac defibrillator interactions with magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla [Abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:138A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Burke PT, Ghanbari H, Alexander PB et al (2010) A protocol for patients with cardiovascular implantable devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): should defibrillation threshold testing be performed post-(MRI). J Interv Card Electrophysiol 28:59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. The Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G et al (2014) 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 67(1):58

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sommer T, Bauer W, Fischbach K et al (2017) MR Imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Rofo 189:204–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gimbel JR (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging of implantable cardiac rhythm devices at 3.0 Tesla. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 31:795–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Irene Floriani, from the Mario Negri Institute, Milan, Italy, with whom the study design was initially conceived.

Funding

This study was supported by local research funds of the IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, a Clinical Research Hospital partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pierpaolo Lupo, Sara Foresti, Hussam Ali & Guido M. G. De Ambroggi

    Present address: Humanitas Clinical Research Institute, Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Unit II, Rozzano, Milan, Italy

  2. Riccardo Cappato

    Present address: Humanitas University Department of Biomedical Sciences and Humanitas Clinical Research Institute, Rozzano, Milan, Italy

  3. Antonio Sorgente

    Present address: Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

  4. Gianluca Epicoco

    Present address: ASST Ospedale di Lecco, Lecco, Italy

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Centre, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy

    Pierpaolo Lupo, Riccardo Cappato, Sara Foresti, Hussam Ali, Guido M. G. De Ambroggi, Antonio Sorgente & Gianluca Epicoco

  2. Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy

    Giovanni Di Leo, Francesco Secchi, Giacomo D. E. Papini, Paola M. Cannaò & Francesco Sardanelli

  3. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Sardanelli

Authors
  1. Pierpaolo Lupo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Cappato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni Di Leo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesco Secchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giacomo D. E. Papini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sara Foresti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hussam Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Guido M. G. De Ambroggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Antonio Sorgente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gianluca Epicoco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Paola M. Cannaò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Francesco Sardanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Sardanelli.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Francesco Sardanelli.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Two of the authors have significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

Prospective controlled study, performed at one institution.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 117 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lupo, P., Cappato, R., Di Leo, G. et al. An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Eur Radiol 28, 2406–2416 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5098-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5098-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation