Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Magnestic resonance conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: are they the standard of care?

Abigail Masding, Charles Butcher, Lucy Edmonson, Nicky Margerison, Mark Mason and Rebecca Lane
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.19-2-s11
Clin Med March 2019
Abigail Masding
Cardiology, Harefield Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles Butcher
Cardiology, Harefield Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucy Edmonson
Cardiology, Harefield Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicky Margerison
Cardiology, Harefield Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Mason
Cardiology, Harefield Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Lane
Cardiology, Harefield Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Aims

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are the mainstay of care in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia, severe left ventricular impairment or symptomatic pauses. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard diagnostic tool for a wide variety of conditions however, traditionally, CIEDs have been a contraindication. Recently magnetic resonance conditional (MRc) CIEDs have become available, however there are limited data on UK de novo implantation rates. We sought to identify the proportion of MRc CIEDs implanted within a large-volume device service in the UK.

Methods

Retrospective single-centre observational study looking at all first-implant CIEDs from August 2013 to August 2017. Patient demographics, CIED type and MRc were collected from an electronic pacing database. Devices were deemed MRc according to manufacturer recommendations.

Results

1,669 patients (71±14years, 70% male) were included. CIEDs were mostly dual chamber pacemakers (n=723 (43%)), dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs; n=336 (20%)) and biventricular ICDs (n=286 (17%)). The proportion of MRc CIEDs greatly increased from 2013–14 to 2016–17 (Table 1). Non-MRc CIEDs were primarily mixed systems, containing a combination of MRc and non-MRc parts (n=765 (81%)). The most common non-MRc part was the generator, 78% (n=599). Overall, the proportion of non-MRc CIEDs decreased dramatically from 75% (n=277) in 2013–14 to 24% (n=103) in 2016–17.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of results

Conclusion

MRc CIEDs are increasingly the first choice in de novo implants and are likely to become the standard of care over the next few years. This may be in part due to the fall in cost premiums on these devices, but also recognition of the clinical importance of lifting the barrier to undergoing MRI. MRc ICDs are more common than MRc pacemakers, probably reflecting industry-led development and highlighting the need for further development of MRc pacemakers, particularly given the increased age and comorbidity of pacemaker recipients where MRI is likely to be of diagnostic and prognostic importance.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2019. All rights reserved.
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Magnestic resonance conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: are they the standard of care?
Abigail Masding, Charles Butcher, Lucy Edmonson, Nicky Margerison, Mark Mason, Rebecca Lane
Clinical Medicine Mar 2019, 19 (Suppl 2) s11; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-2-s11

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Magnestic resonance conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: are they the standard of care?
Abigail Masding, Charles Butcher, Lucy Edmonson, Nicky Margerison, Mark Mason, Rebecca Lane
Clinical Medicine Mar 2019, 19 (Suppl 2) s11; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-2-s11
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Aims
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Conflict of interest statement
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Adherence to therapy in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases: the older the better
  • A review in general practice: the appropriate prescription of PPIs with those taking aspirin over the age of 70
  • A rare case of ascites
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians