European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on January 17, 2005
European Heart Journal 2005 26(4):325-327; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi084
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The European Society of Cardiology 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Can cardiac pacemakers and magnetic resonance imaging systems co-exist?
Oklahoma Heart Institute, Tulsa, OK, USA
* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 918 592 0999; fax: +1 918 878 2436. E-mail address: martin@oklahomaheart.com
This editorial refers to ‘In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging’
by R. Luechinger et al., on page 376
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Background
One of the earliest lessons learned by physicians and technologists working in the field of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is that cardiac pacemakers represent a strict contraindication to performing an examination. However, there are multiple examples of implants and devices that previously were contraindicated for MRI and are now allowed within specific guidelines. These include neurostimulation systems, cochlear implants, a drug infusion pump, and a bone fusion stimulator.
Because of expanding clinical indications, both MR and pacemaker technology has steadily advanced. It is no surprise then that these two powerful technologies might clash. There has been a steady increase in the number of pacemakers implanted in the United States and worldwide. More than 900 000 pacemakers were implanted worldwide in 2003, and since 1999 implantation rates have increased 5–6% per year.
MR systems have been increasing in number as well. There are now 
15 000 MR systems worldwide, and 35
Current strategies
Previous studies
Current study
Recommendations
Future studies
Conclusion
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in EHJ:
- In vivo heating of pacemaker leads during magnetic resonance imaging
- Roger Luechinger, Volkert A. Zeijlemaker, Erik Morre Pedersen, Peter Mortensen, Erling Falk, Firat Duru, Reto Candinas, and Peter Boesiger
EHJ 2005 26: 376-383.[Abstract] [Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T Dill Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: Non-invasive imaging Heart, July 1, 2008; 94(7): 943 - 948. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. N. Levine, A. S. Gomes, A. E. Arai, D. A. Bluemke, S. D. Flamm, E. Kanal, W. J. Manning, E. T. Martin, J. M. Smith, N. Wilke, et al. 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 Circulation, December 11, 2007; 116(24): 2878 - 2891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Mikolich and E. T. Martin Constrictive Pericarditis Diagnosed by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Pacemaker Patient Circulation, February 20, 2007; 115(7): e191 - e193. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Funk, D. L. Kirch, J. E. Koss, E. Botvinick, and B. H. Hasegawa A Novel Approach to Multipinhole SPECT for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2006; 47(4): 595 - 602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. R. Gimbel, B. L. Wilkoff, E. Kanal, and M. A. Rozner Safe, sensible, sagacious: responsible scanning of pacemaker patients Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2005; 26(16): 1683 - 1684. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|