Advertisement

Cardiac Devices

  • Ian R. Drexler
  • Alan C. Legasto
  • Daniel B. Green
  • Quynh A. TruongEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

Intracardiac devices and implants are commonly encountered in cardiac diagnostic imaging. These may range from prosthetic heart valves to ventricular assist devices. Familiarity by the interpreting physician with the normal and abnormal appearance of each device is essential for proper detection of device complications. While devices may be detected via computed tomography, beam hardening and streak artifacts may limit their full appearance, which is why it is important to know both the cross-sectional appearance and the scout or radiographic appearance of a device. This chapter reviews the normal appearance of common intracardiac devices as well as well as frequently seen artifacts.

Keywords

Cardiac devices Cardiac imaging Cardiac CT Heart valves Pacemakers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend our gratitude to Benjamin W. Cobb for his assistance with imaging acquisition.

References

  1. 1.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009;119:1034–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Habets J, Mali WPTM, Budde RPJ. Multidetector CT angiography in evaluation of prosthetic heart valve dysfunction. Radiographics. 2012;32:1893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tokunaga S, Tominaga R. Current status of the mechanical valve and bioprosthesis in Japan. J Artif Organs. 2008;11:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pai GP, Ellison RG, Rubin JW, et al. Disc immobilization of Bjork-Shiley and Medtronic Hall valves during and immediately after valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1987;44:73–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riess F-C, Bader R, Cramer E, et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to ten years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:1310–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Puvimanasinghe J, Takkenberg J, EIijkemans M, et al. Comparison of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg. 2006;29:374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonow RO, Leon MB, Doshi D, et al. Management strategies and future challenges for aortic valve disease. Lancet. 2016;387:1312–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holmes DR, MacK MJ, Kaul S, et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1200–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mylotte D, Piazza N. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement failure. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(4). pii: e002531.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pislaru SV, Nkomo VT, Sandhu GS. Assessment of prosthetic valve function after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wan B, Rahnavardi M, Tian DH, et al. A meta-analysis of MitraClip system versus surgery for treatment of severe mitral regurgitation. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:683–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart MH, Jenkins JS. The evolving role of percutaneous mitral valve repair. Ochsner J. 2016;16:270–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz CF, Gulkarov I, Bohmann K, et al. The role of annuloplasty in mitral valve repair. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;45:419–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maisano F, Skantharaja R, Denti P, et al. Mitral annuloplasty. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;2009(918) MMCTS 2009:mmcts.2008.003640.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacob S, Shahzad MA, Maheshwari R, et al. Cardiac rhythm device identification algorithm using X-rays: CaRDIA-X. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:915–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costelloe CM, Murphy WA, Gladish GW, Rozner MA. Radiography of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:1252–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aziz S, Leon AR, El-Chami MF. The subcutaneous defibrillator: a review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reynolds D, Duray GZ, Omar R, et al. A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:533–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paruchuri V, Adhaduk M, Garikipati NV, et al. Clinical utility of a novel wireless implantable loop recorder in the evaluation of patients with unexplained syncope. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:858–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shanmugam N, Liew R. The implantable loop recorder-an important addition to the armentarium in the management of unexplained syncope. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2012;41:115–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bilkis AA, Alwi M, Hasri S, et al. The Amplatzer duct occluder: experience in 209 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:258–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tobis J, Shenoda M. Percutaneous treatment of patent foramen ovale and atrial septal defects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1722–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee T, Tsai I-C, Fu Y-C, et al. MDCT evaluation after closure of atrial septal defect with an Amplatzer septal occluder. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:W431–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaulitz R, Paul T, Hausdorf G. Extending the limits of transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects with the double umbrella device (CardioSEAL). Heart. 1998;80:54–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chatterjee S, Herrmann HC, Wilensky RL, et al. Safety and procedural success of left atrial appendage exclusion with the lariat device. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang Y, Di Biase L, Horton RP, et al. Left atrial appendage studied by computed tomography to help planning for appendage closure device placement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:973–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waksman R, Pendyala LK. Overview of the Food and Drug Administration circulatory system devices panel meetings on WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:378–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iskandar S, Vacek J, Lavu M, Lakkireddy D. Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention. Cardiol Clin. 2016;34:329–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ailawadi G, Gerdisch MW, Harvey RL, et al. Exclusion of the left atrial appendage with a novel device: early results of a multicenter trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:1002–1009.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bartus K, Han FT, Bednarek J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the LARIAT device in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:108–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ismail TF, Panikker S, Markides V, et al. CT imaging for left atrial appendage closure: a review and pictorial essay. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9:89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parissis H, Graham V, Lampridis S, et al. IABP: history-evolution-pathophysiology- indications: what we need to know. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11:122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hurwitz LM, Goodman PC. Intraaortic balloon pump location and aortic dissection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1245–6.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ihdayhid AR, Chopra S, Rankin J. Intra-aortic balloon pump. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2014;29:285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al. 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:e7–e26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brown JL, Estep JD. Temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in advanced heart failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2016;12(3):385–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC. Mechanical circulatory support: registering a therapy in evolution. Circ Heart Fail. 2008;1:200–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lalonde SD, Alba AC, Rigobon A, et al. Clinical differences between continuous flow ventricular assist devices: a comparison between HeartMate II and HeartWare HVAD. J Card Surg. 2013;28:604–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carr CM, Jacob J, Park SJ, et al. CT of left ventricular assist devices. Radiographics. 2010;30:429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sawa Y. Current status of third-generation implantable left ventricular assist devices in Japan, Duraheart and HeartWare. Surg Today. 2015;45:672–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rodriguez LE, Suarez EE, Loebe M, Bruckner BA. Ventricular assist devices (VAD) therapy: new technology, new hope? Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2013;9:32–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS, Tsau PH, et al. Medical devices of the chest. Radiographics. 2004;24:1725–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Godoy MCB, Leitman BS, de Groot PM, et al. Chest radiography in the ICU: part 2, evaluation of cardiovascular lines and other devices. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:572–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mandhan PL, Samarakkody U, Brown S, et al. Comparison of suture ligation and clip application for the treatment of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:672–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian R. Drexler
    • 1
  • Alan C. Legasto
    • 1
  • Daniel B. Green
    • 1
  • Quynh A. Truong
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations