Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • Medical Dialogues
    • Education Dialogues
    • Business Dialogues
    • Medical Jobs
    • Medical Matrimony
    • MD Brand Connect
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • Editorial
    • News
        • Anesthesiology
        • Cancer
        • Cardiac Sciences
        • Critical Care
        • Dentistry
        • Dermatology
        • Diabetes and Endo
        • Diagnostics
        • ENT
        • Featured Research
        • Gastroenterology
        • Geriatrics
        • Medicine
        • Nephrology
        • Neurosciences
        • Nursing
        • Obs and Gynae
        • Ophthalmology
        • Orthopaedics
        • Paediatrics
        • Parmedics
        • Pharmacy
        • Psychiatry
        • Pulmonology
        • Radiology
        • Surgery
        • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
        • Anesthesiology Guidelines
        • Cancer Guidelines
        • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
        • Critical Care Guidelines
        • Dentistry Guidelines
        • Dermatology Guidelines
        • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
        • Diagnostics Guidelines
        • ENT Guidelines
        • Featured Practice Guidelines
        • Gastroenterology Guidelines
        • Geriatrics Guidelines
        • Medicine Guidelines
        • Nephrology Guidelines
        • Neurosciences Guidelines
        • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
        • Ophthalmology Guidelines
        • Orthopaedics Guidelines
        • Paediatrics Guidelines
        • Psychiatry Guidelines
        • Pulmonology Guidelines
        • Radiology Guidelines
        • Surgery Guidelines
        • Urology Guidelines
    LoginRegister
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    LoginRegister
    • Home
    • Editorial
    • News
      • Anesthesiology
      • Cancer
      • Cardiac Sciences
      • Critical Care
      • Dentistry
      • Dermatology
      • Diabetes and Endo
      • Diagnostics
      • ENT
      • Featured Research
      • Gastroenterology
      • Geriatrics
      • Medicine
      • Nephrology
      • Neurosciences
      • Nursing
      • Obs and Gynae
      • Ophthalmology
      • Orthopaedics
      • Paediatrics
      • Parmedics
      • Pharmacy
      • Psychiatry
      • Pulmonology
      • Radiology
      • Surgery
      • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
      • Anesthesiology Guidelines
      • Cancer Guidelines
      • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
      • Critical Care Guidelines
      • Dentistry Guidelines
      • Dermatology Guidelines
      • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
      • Diagnostics Guidelines
      • ENT Guidelines
      • Featured Practice Guidelines
      • Gastroenterology Guidelines
      • Geriatrics Guidelines
      • Medicine Guidelines
      • Nephrology Guidelines
      • Neurosciences Guidelines
      • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
      • Ophthalmology Guidelines
      • Orthopaedics Guidelines
      • Paediatrics Guidelines
      • Psychiatry Guidelines
      • Pulmonology Guidelines
      • Radiology Guidelines
      • Surgery Guidelines
      • Urology Guidelines
    • Home
    • News
    • Cardiac Sciences
    • Low-field MRI upto 0.2...

    Low-field MRI upto 0.2 tesla safe for patients with implanted devices

    Written by Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli Kohli Published On 2019-07-13T09:00:42+05:30  |  Updated On 13 July 2019 9:00 AM IST
    Low-field MRI upto 0.2 tesla safe for patients with implanted devices

    Low-field MRI up to 0.2 tesla safe for patients with implanted devices, according to an Austrian study. Although the strong magnetic field is not harmful in itself, implanted medical devices that contain metal may malfunction or cause problems during an MRI exam.The study has appeared in the European Journal of Radiology.


    It is therefore a pertinent question for the clinicians to reduce MRI magnet strength to which level to ensure the safety of patients with implanted cardiac rhythm management (CRM) devices and also maintain diagnostic-quality images simultaneously.Thanks to medical advancements and an aging population, more patients than ever have some sort of implant. And while metal in an implant would prevent you from getting an MRI, it’s not always the case.


    Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the body uses a powerful magnetic field, radio waves and a computer to produce detailed pictures of the inside of your body. It may be used to help diagnose or monitor treatment for a variety of conditions within the chest, abdomen and pelvis and may be used to safely monitor baby during pregnancy but patients with implanted cardiac rhythm management (CRM) devices pose a serious problem.


    At that magnetic field strength up to 0.2 teslas, researchers found that CRM devices -- defined for this study as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) -- functioned properly and resulted in no cases of cardiac arrhythmia or other adverse physical effects among the more than 400 patients in the study.


    The researchers looked at four years of routine 0.2-tesla MRI scans (Magnetom Concerto, Siemens Healthineers) on 338 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.1 ± 9.2 years; range, 19-98 years). All the subjects had an implanted CRM device for an average of 4.1 (± 3.2) years. More than one MRI exam was performed in 41 patients (12%), with a maximum of six scans for one patient.


    This analysis included 62 pacemaker-dependent patients (18.3%), 52 patients with 1.5-Tesla-MR conditional pacemakers (15.4%) and 13 patients with abandoned leads (3.9%).MR images covered a total of 446 different regions of interest, with the most common scans performed on the lumbar spine (206 exams, 46.2%), cerebrum (69, 15.5%), knee (56, 12.6%), and cervical spine (42, 9.4%).


    Mean scan time at 0.2 tesla was 34 (± 12) minutes (range, 22-49 minutes), with a specific absorption rate range of 20 to 40 watts/kg. The same electrophysiologist assessed the results of the low-field scans and performance of the CRM devices immediately before and after the scans.


    The researchers foound that except for one examination, which was interrupted because of recurrent severe nausea, all MRI scans could be analyzed efficiently. No induction of arrhythmia or inhibition of pacemaker function occurred. Compared to the device interrogation before MRI, there were no significant changes in battery voltage, pacing capture threshold, sensing of intrinsic ECG, lead impedance, as well as shock impedance in ICD devices after completed examination.


    The authors concluded that low-field MRI examinations (0.2 Tesla) were efficient and safe regarding clinical and technical complications in patients with devices for cardiac rhythm management, even in case of pacemaker-dependency or the presence of abandoned leads.


    "Despite the disadvantage of prolonged image acquisition times and the limitation to simple routine MRI scans only (i.e., joints and cranium), this [0.2-tesla MRI] technique reveals some benefits for the clinician," the researchers added. "Besides the comparatively lower overall costs for purchasing and technical maintenance, the open design of low-field MRI scanners enables not only an easier access to the patient for interventional studies but also examinations in special conditions, such as claustrophobic, obese, and pediatric patients."

    cardiac resynchronization therapycardioverterCRM devicedefibrillatorsEuropean Journal of RadiologyICDImplantableimplantable cardioverter defibrillatorLow-field magnetic resonance imagingmagnet strengthMRIpacemakerpacemakerssafety

    Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

    Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli Kohli
    Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli Kohli
      Show Full Article
      Next Story
      Similar Posts
      NO DATA FOUND

      • Email: info@medicaldialogues.in
      • Phone: 011 - 4372 0751

      Website Last Updated On : 12 Oct 2022 7:06 AM GMT
      Company
      • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • Our Team
      • Reach our Editor
      • Feedback
      • Submit Article
      Ads & Legal
      • Advertise
      • Advertise Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Editorial Policy
      • Comments Policy
      • Disclamier
      Medical Dialogues is health news portal designed to update medical and healthcare professionals but does not limit/block other interested parties from accessing our general health content. The health content on Medical Dialogues and its subdomains is created and/or edited by our expert team, that includes doctors, healthcare researchers and scientific writers, who review all medical information to keep them in line with the latest evidence-based medical information and accepted health guidelines by established medical organisations of the world.

      Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription.Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. You can check out disclaimers here. © 2025 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

      © 2025 - Medical Dialogues. All Rights Reserved.
      Powered By: Hocalwire
      X
      We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok