Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Safety and Monitoring for Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Part of the book series: Contemporary Cardiology ((CONCARD))

  • 1797 Accesses

Abstract

An increasing proportion of patients with cardiovascular disease have higher acuity of disease and may have ferromagnetic implants with potential for interaction with the MRI environment. Familiarity with each device class and its potential for electromagnetic interaction is essential for radiologists and cardiologists performing MRI examinations in this population of patients. The final decision to perform MRI in patients with electronic devices or other implants is frequently made by considering the potential benefit of MRI relative to the attendant risks associated with various devices. While techniques for safe imaging with MRI in the setting of certain devices have been developed, the potential for catastrophic complications exists and dictates a high degree of vigilance to minimize patient risk.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Prasad SK, Pennell DJ. Safety of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with cardiovascular implants and devices. Heart. 2004;90(11):1241–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Manner I, Alanen A, Komu M, Savunen T, Kantonen I, Ekfors T. MR imaging in the presence of small circular metallic implants: assessment of thermal injuries. Acta Radiol. 1996;37(4):551–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Okamura Y, Yamada Y, Mochizuki Y, et al. [Evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts with magnetic resonance imaging]. [Zasshi][Journal] Nihon Kyobu Geka Gakkai. 1997;45(6):801–805.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hartnell GG, Spence L, Hughes LA, Cohen MC, Saouaf R, Buff B. Safety of MR imaging in patients who have retained metallic materials after cardiac surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(5):1157–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy KJ, Cohan RH, Ellis JH. MR imaging in patients with epicardial pacemaker wires. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(3):727–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roguin A, Zviman MM, Meininger GR, et al. 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. 2004;110(5):475–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Soulen RL, Budinger TF, Higgins CB. Magnetic resonance imaging of prosthetic heart valves. Radiology. 1985;154(3):705–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards M, Taylor KM, Shellock FG. Prosthetic heart valves: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(2):363–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shellock FG. Prosthetic heart valves and annuloplasty rings: assessment of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2001;3(4):317–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shellock FG. Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(6):721–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Edwards M-B, Draper ERC, Hand JW, Taylor KM, Young IR. Mechanical testing of human cardiac tissue: some implications for MRI safety. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(5):835–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: implants and devices. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(5):485–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Condon B, Hadley DM. Potential MR hazard to patients with metallic heart valves: the Lenz effect. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):171–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van Gorp MJ, van der Graaf Y, de Mol BAJM, et al. Björk-Shiley convexoconcave valves: susceptibility artifacts at brain MR imaging and mechanical valve fractures 1. Radiology. 2004;230(3):709–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ho JC, Shellock FG. Magnetic properties of Ni–Co–Cr-base Elgiloy. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999;10(9):555–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Edwards M, Ordidge RJ, Hand JW, Taylor KM, Young IR. Assessment of magnetic field (4.7 T) induced forces on prosthetic heart valves and annuloplasty rings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(2):311–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sherif MA, Abdel-Wahab M, Beurich H-W, et al. Haemodynamic evaluation of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. EuroIntervention J Eur Collab with Work Gr Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2011;7(1):57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Strohm O, Kivelitz D, Gross W, et al. Safety of implantable coronary stents during H-magnetic resonance imaging at 1.0 and 1.5 T. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 1999;1(3):239–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scott NA, Pettigrew RI. Absence of movement of coronary scents after placement in a magnetic resonance imaging field. Am J Cardiol. 1994;73(12):900–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hug J, Nagel E, Bornstedt A, Schnackenburg B, Oswald H, Fleck E. Coronary arterial stents: safety and artifacts during MR imaging 1. Radiology. 2000;216(3):781–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gerber TC, Fasseas P, Lennon RJ, et al. Clinical safety of magnetic resonance imaging early after coronary artery stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(7):1295–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaya MG, Okyay K, Yazici H, et al. Long-term clinical effects of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with coronary artery stent implantation. Coron Artery Dis. 2009;20(2):138–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Porto I, Selvanayagam J, Ashar V, Neubauer S, Banning AP. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging one to three days after bare metal and drug-eluting stent implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96(3):366–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shellock FG, Forder JR. Drug eluting coronary stent: in vitro evaluation of magnet resonance safety at 3 tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(2):415–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Busch M, Vollmann W, Bertsch T, et al. On the heating of inductively coupled resonators (stents) during MRI examinations. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(4):775–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Engellau L, Olsrud J, Brockstedt S, et al. MR evaluation ex vivo and in vivo of a covered stent-graft for abdominal aortic aneurysms: ferromagnetism, heating, artifacts, and velocity mapping. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):112–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ahmed S, Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance imaging safety: implications for cardiovascular patients. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2001;3(3):171–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stables RH, Mohiaddin R, Panting J, Pennell DJ, Pepper J, Sigwart U. Exclusion of an aneurysmal segment of the thoracic aorta with covered stents. Circulation. 2000;101(15):1888–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marshall MW, Teitelbaum GP, Kim HS, Deveikis J. Ferromagnetism and magnetic resonance artifacts of platinum embolization microcoils. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1991;14(3):163–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Okahara M, Kiyosue H, Hori Y, Yamashita M, Nagatomi H, Mori H. Three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography for evaluation of intracranial aneurysms after endosaccular packing with Guglielmi detachable coils: comparison with 3D digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(7):1162–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Soeda A, Sakai N, Sakai H, et al. Thromboembolic events associated with Guglielmi detachable coil embolization of asymptomatic cerebral aneurysms: evaluation of 66 consecutive cases with use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(1):127–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Albayram S, Selcuk H, Kara B, et al. Thromboembolic events associated with balloon-assisted coil embolization: evaluation with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(10):1768–77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Cottier JP, Bleuzen-Couthon A, Gallas S, et al. Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: comparison of plain radiographs, 3D time-of-flight MRA and digital subtraction angiography. Neuroradiology. 2003;45(11):818–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yamada N, Hayashi K, Murao K, Higashi M, Iihara K. Time-of-flight MR angiography targeted to coiled intracranial aneurysms is more sensitive to residual flow than is digital subtraction angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(7):1154–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cronqvist M, Wirestam R, Ramgren B, et al. Diffusion and perfusion MRI in patients with ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular coiling: complications, procedural results, MR findings and clinical outcome. Neuroradiology. 2005;47(11):855–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Karacozoff AM, Shellock FG, Wakhloo AK. A next-generation, flow-diverting implant used to treat brain aneurysms: in vitro evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating and artifacts at 3-T. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(1):145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Williamson MR, McCowan TC, Walker CW, Ferris EJ. Effect of a 1.5 tesla magnetic field on greenfield filters in vitro and in dogs. Angiology. 1988;39(12):1022–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Liebman CE, Messersmith RN, Levin DN, Lu C-T. MR imaging of inferior vena caval filters: safety and artifacts. Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150(5):1174–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Honda M, Obuchi M, Sugimoto H. Artifacts of vena cava filters ex vivo on MR angiography. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2003;2(2):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Teitelbaum GP, Ortega HV, Vinitski S, et al. Low-artifact intravascular devices: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1988;168(3):713–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Grassi CJ, Matsumoto AH, Teitelbaum GP. Vena caval occlusion after Simon nitinol filter placement: identification with MR imaging in patients with malignancy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1992;3(3):535–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim D, Edelman RR, Margolin CJ, et al. The Simon nitinol filter: evaluation by MR and ultrasound. Angiology. 1992;43(7):541–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Frahm C, Gehl H, Lorch H, et al. MR-guided placement of a temporary vena cava filter: technique and feasibility. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8(1):105–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bücker A, Neuerburg JM, Adam GB, et al. Real-time MR guidance for inferior vena cava filter placement in an animal model. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(6):753–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shellock FG, Morisoli SM. Ex vivo evaluation of ferromagnetism and artifacts of cardiac occluders exposed to a 1.5-T MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;4(2):213–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rickers C, Jerosch-Herold M, Hu X, et al. Magnetic resonance image-guided transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects. Circulation. 2003;107(1):132–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shellock FG, Valencerina S. Septal repair implants: evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging safety at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;23(10):1021–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shellock FG, Shellock VJ. Vascular access ports and catheters: ex vivo testing of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts associated with MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;14(4):443–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Titterington B, Shellock FG. Evaluation of MRI issues for an access port with a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(8):1439–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Masaki F, Shuhei Y, Riko K, Yohjiro M. Iatrogenic second-degree burn caused by a catheter encased tubular braid of stainless steel during MRI. Burns. 2007;33(8):1077–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Razavi R, Hill DLG, Keevil SF, et al. Cardiac catheterisation guided by MRI in children and adults with congenital heart disease. Lancet. 2003;362(9399):1877–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Susil RC, Yeung CJ, Halperin HR, Lardo AC, Atalar E. Multifunctional interventional devices for MRI: a combined electrophysiology/MRI catheter. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47(3):594–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Krämer NA, Krüger S, Schmitz S, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a novel fiber compound MR guidewire in vivo. Investig Radiol. 2009;44(7):390–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Saikus CE, Lederman RJ. Interventional cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a new opportunity for image-guided interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(11):1321–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Brown DW, Croft JB, Giles WH, Anda RF, Mensah GA. Epidemiology of pacemaker procedures among Medicare enrollees in 1990, 1995, and 2000. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(3):409–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(12):877–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(3):225–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kalin R, Stanton MS. Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):326–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shellock FG, Tkach JA, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk TJ. Cardiac pacemakers, Icds, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional (“long-bore”) and “short-bore” 1.5-and 3.0-tesla Mr systems: SAFETY. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2003;5(2):387–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Erlebacher JA, Cahill PT, Pannizzo F, Knowles RJR. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on DDD pacemakers. Am J Cardiol. 1986;57(6):437–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hayes DL, Holmes DR, Gray JE. Effect of 1.5 tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10(4):782–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Smith JM. Industry viewpoint: Guidant: pacemakers, ICDs, and MRI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Stanton MS. Industry viewpoint: medtronic: pacemakers, ICDs, and MRI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Levine PA. Industry viewpoint: St. Jude medical: pacemakers, ICDs and MRI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):266–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care 1. Radiology. 2004;232(3):635–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Faris OP, Shein MJ. Government viewpoint: US food & drug administration: pacemakers, ICDs and MRI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):268–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gimbel J, Johnson D, Levine PA, Wilkoff BL. Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1996;19(6):913–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sommer T, Vahlhaus C, Lauck G, et al. MR imaging and cardiac pacemakers: in vitro evaluation and in vivo studies in 51 patients at 0.5 T 1. Radiology. 2000;215(3):869–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vahlhaus C, Sommer T, Lewalter T, et al. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by magnetic resonance imaging: are there irreversible changes at 0.5 Tesla? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2001;24(4):489–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Martin ET, Coman JA, Shellock FG, Pulling CC, Fair R, Jenkins K. Magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac pacemaker safety at 1.5-Tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(7):1315–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Del Ojo J, Moya F, Villalba J, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging safe in cardiac pacemaker recipients? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gimbel J, Kanal E, Schwartz KM, Wilkoff BL. Outcome of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):270–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2013;2013:eht150.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nazarian S, Roguin A, Zviman MM, et al. 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. 2006;114(12):1277–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Baker KB, Tkach JA, Nyenhuis JA, et al. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimeter of MRI-related implant heating. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(2):315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Gimbel J. Magnetic resonance imaging of implantable cardiac rhythm devices at 3.0 tesla. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31(7):795–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mollerus M, Albin G, Lipinski M, Lucca J. Ectopy in patients with permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators undergoing an MRI scan. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009;32(6):772–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Rezai AR, Phillips M, Baker KB, et al. Neurostimulation system used for deep brain stimulation (DBS): MR safety issues and implications of failing to follow safety recommendations. Investig Radiol. 2004;39(5):300–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Finelli DA, Rezai AR, Ruggieri PM, et al. MR imaging-related heating of deep brain stimulation electrodes: in vitro study. Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23(10):1795–802.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Bhidayasiri R, Bronstein JM, Sinha S, et al. Bilateral neurostimulation systems used for deep brain stimulation: in vitro study of MRI-related heating at 1.5 T and implications for clinical imaging of the brain. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;23(4):549–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Baker KB, Nyenhuis JA, Hrdlicka G, Rezai AR, Tkach JA, Shellock FG. Neurostimulation systems: assessment of magnetic field interactions associated with 1.5-and 3-Tesla MR systems. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21(1):72–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Fraix V, Chabardes S, Krainik A, et al. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with implanted deep brain stimulation systems: clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2010;113(6):1242–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Foltynie T, Zrinzo L, Martinez-Torres I, et al. MRI-guided STN DBS in Parkinson’s disease without microelectrode recording: efficacy and safety. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(4):358–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Henderson JM, Tkach J, Phillips M, Baker K, Shellock FG, Rezai AR. Permanent neurological deficit related to magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with implanted deep brain stimulation electrodes for Parkinson’s disease: case report. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(5):E1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Rezai AR, Baker KB, Tkach JA, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging safe for patients with neurostimulation systems used for deep brain stimulation? Neurosurgery. 2005;57(5):1056–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Azevedo CF, Amado LC, Kraitchman DL, et al. The effect of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation on left ventricular functional recovery early after acute myocardial infarction: a randomized experimental magnetic resonance imaging study. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(12):1235–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kumar R, Lerski RA, Gandy S, Clift BA, Abboud RJ. Safety of orthopedic implants in magnetic resonance imaging: an experimental verification. J Orthop Res. 2006;24(9):1799–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Liu Y, Chen J, Shellock FG, Kainz W. Computational and experimental studies of an orthopedic implant: MRI-related heating at 1.5-T/64-MHz and 3-T/128-MHz. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(2):491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bernstein MA, Huston J, Ward HA. Imaging artifacts at 3.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(4):735–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Weinmann HJ, Laniado M, Mützel W. Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1983;16(2):167–72.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Van Wagoner M, Worah D. Gadodiamide injection: first human experience with the nonionic magnetic resonance imaging enhancement agent. Investig Radiol. 1993;28:S44–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. McLachlan SJ, Eaton S, De Simone DN. Pharmacokinetic behavior of gadoteridol injection. Investig Radiol. 1992;27:S16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 1M gadobutrol in patients with chronic renal failure. Investig Radiol. 2000;35(1):35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Baker JF, Kratz LC, Stevens GR, Wible JH Jr. Pharmacokinetics and safety of the MRI contrast agent gadoversetamide injection (OptiMARK) in healthy pediatric subjects. Investig Radiol. 2004;39(6):334–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Pascolo L, Cupelli F, Anelli PL, et al. Molecular mechanisms for the hepatic uptake of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1999;257(3):746–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. McMurry TJ, Parmelee DJ, Sajiki H, et al. The effect of a phosphodiester linking group on albumin binding, blood half-life, and relaxivity of intravascular diethylenetriaminepentaacetato aquo gadolinium (III) MRI contrast agents. J Med Chem. 2002;45(16):3465–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Levey AS, Eckardt K-U, Tsukamoto Y, et al. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2005;67(6):2089–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Rai AT, Hogg JP. Persistence of gadolinium in CSF: a diagnostic pitfall in patients with end-stage renal disease. Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(7):1357–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Morris JM, Miller GM. Increased signal in the subarachnoid space on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging associated with the clearance dynamics of gadolinium chelate: a potential diagnostic pitfall. Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(10):1964–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Choyke PL, Cady J, DePollar SL, Austin H. Determination of serum creatinine prior to iodinated contrast media: is it necessary in all patients? Tech Urol. 1998;4(2):65–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Sena BF, Stern JP, Pandharipande PV, et al. Screening patients to assess renal function before administering gadolinium chelates: assessment of the Choyke questionnaire. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):424–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Murphy KPJ, Szopinski KT, Cohan RH, Mermillod B, Ellis JH. Occurrence of adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast material and management of patients at increased risk: a survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Fellowship Directors. Acad Radiol. 1999;6(11):656–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Prince MR, Zhang H, Zou Z, Staron RB, Brill PW. Incidence of immediate gadolinium contrast media reactions. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):W138–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Jung J-W, Kang H-R, Kim M-H, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology. 2012;264(2):414–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Cowper SE, Robin HS, Steinberg SM, Su LD, Gupta S, LeBoit PE. Scleromyxoedema-like cutaneous diseases in renal-dialysis patients. Lancet. 2000;356(9234):1000–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Grobner T. Gadolinium–a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(4):1104–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Morcos SK. Experimental studies investigating the pathophysiology of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis; what did we learn so far? Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):496–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hütter J, Weinmann H-J. Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 C. Investig Radiol. 2008;43(12):817–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Martin DR, Krishnamoorthy SK, Kalb B, et al. Decreased incidence of NSF in patients on dialysis after changing gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI protocols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(2):440–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Kuo PH. Gadolinium-containing MRI contrast agents: important variations on a theme for NSF. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5(1):29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. American College of Radiology (ACR) Website. ACR manual on contrast media, version 10.1. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/ContrastManual/2015_Contrast_Media.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2016.

  112. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almén T, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR contrast medium safety committee guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):307–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Tran KT, Prather HB, Cockerell CJ, Jacobe H. UV-A1 therapy for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(10):1170–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Elmholdt TR, Buus NH, Ramsing M, Olesen AB. Antifibrotic effect after low-dose imatinib mesylate treatment in patients with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an open-label non-randomized, uncontrolled clinical trial. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2013;27(6):779–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Ross C, De Rosa N, Marshman G, Astill D. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in a gadolinium-naïve patient: successful treatment with oral sirolimus. Australas J Dermatol. 2015;56(3):e59–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Mathur K, Morris S, Deighan C, Green R, Douglas KW. Extracorporeal photopheresis improves nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy/nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: three case reports and review of literature. J Clin Apher. 2008;23(4):144–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Panesar M, Banerjee S, Barone GW. Clinical improvement of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after kidney transplantation. Clin Transpl. 2008;22(6):803–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Nacif MS, Arai AE, Lima JA, Bluemke DA. Gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance: administered dose in relationship to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:18.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2013;270(3):834–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology. 2015;276(1):228–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275(3):772–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Malayeri AA, Brooks KM, Bryant LH, et al. National Institutes of Health perspective on reports of gadolinium deposition in the brain. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(3):501–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Saito K, Suzuki H, Suzuki K. Teratogenic effects of static magnetic field on mouse fetuses. Reprod Toxicol. 2006;22(1):118–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Marcos HB, Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S. Normal placenta: gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):493–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Shoenut JP, Semelka RC, Silverman R, Yaffe CS, Micflikier AB. MRI in the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease in two pregnant women. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1993;17(3):244–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Oh KY, Roberts VHJ, Schabel MC, Grove KL, Woods M, Frias AE. Gadolinium chelate contrast material in pregnancy: fetal biodistribution in the nonhuman primate. Radiology. 2015;276(1):110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Wang PI, Chong ST, Kielar AZ, et al. Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 1, evidence-based review and recommendations. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):778–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Kubik-Huch RA, Gottstein-Aalame NM, Frenzel T, et al. Gadopentetate Dimeglumine excretion into human breast milk during lactation 1. Radiology. 2000;216(2):555–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Summary

The diagnostic benefits of cardiovascular MRI are of critical importance in the management of an ever-increasing number of patients with cardiovascular disease. Patients with higher morbidity are referred for MRI, raising specific safety concerns. Although techniques for safe imaging in the setting of certain devices have been developed, the potential for catastrophic complications still exists and dictates a high degree of vigilance for safe imaging. The reader is encouraged to consult websites that provide more specific information regarding individual devices and safe administration of GBCAs (e.g., www.mrisafety.com and www.ACR.org). The final decision to perform cardiac MRI should be made on an individual basis considering the potential benefit of MRI relative to the associated risks.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIH Clinical Center, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Rolf Symons & David A. Bluemke

  2. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Saman Nazarian & Henry R. Halperin

Authors
  1. Rolf Symons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saman Nazarian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henry R. Halperin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David A. Bluemke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Bluemke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiovascular Division, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Raymond Y. Kwong

  2. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Michael Jerosch-Herold

  3. Department of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Bobak Heydari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Symons, R., Nazarian, S., Halperin, H.R., Bluemke, D.A. (2019). Safety and Monitoring for Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: Kwong, R., Jerosch-Herold, M., Heydari, B. (eds) Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Contemporary Cardiology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8841-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8841-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-8839-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-8841-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation