Magnetic resonance in patients with cardiovascular devices. SEC-GT CRMTC/SEC-Heart Rhythm Association/SERAM/SEICAT consensus document.

Magnetic resonance has become a first-line imaging modality in various clinical scenarios. The number of patients with different cardiovascular devices, including cardiac implantable electronic devices, has increased exponentially. Although there have been reports of risks associated with exposure to magnetic resonance in these patients, the clinical evidence now supports the safety of performing these studies under specific conditions and following recommendations to minimize possible risks. This document was written by the Working Group on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cardiac Computed Tomography of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC-GT CRMTC), the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC-Heart Rhythm Association), the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and the Spanish Society of Cardiothoracic Imaging (SEICAT). The document reviews the clinical evidence available in this field and establishes a series of recommendations so that patients with cardiovascular devices can safely access this diagnostic tool.

Safety and tolerability of regadenoson in comparison with adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Data from a multicentre prospective registry.

To assess the feasibility and incidence of immediate complications of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) with regadenoson in comparison with adenosine in a large referral population. This is a large, multicenter, prospective registry of vasodilator stress-CMR in a referral population. We recorded the clinical and demographic data, quality of test, CMR findings, hemodynamic data, and complications. Between January 2016 and July 2019, 2908 patients underwent stress-CMR, 2253 with regadenoson and 655 with adenosine. 25.1% of patients had previously known coronary artery disease (CAD). In 305 patients regadenoson was used due to presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, while in 1948 subjects regadenoson was used as first-line vasodilator. Quality was optimal in 90.0%, suboptimal in 9.5%, and poor in 0.5%. Images were diagnostic in 98.9%. After stress with regadenoson, aminophylline 200 mg was administered intravenously in all patients. No patient died or had severe immediate complications with regadenoson as opposed to 2 severe bronchospasm with adenosine (p = 0.05). 11 patients (0.5%) had non-severe complications with regadenoson and five patients (0.8%) with adenosine (p = n.s.). Only two patients (0.088%) had non-severe bronchospasm after regadenoson administration. All complications were solved in the CMR unit, with no need for further specific care. Factors significantly associated with presence of complications were history of COPD or asthma and detection of inducible ischaemia. Patients had significantly more minor symptoms when adenosine was used (66.0% vs. 18.4%, p < 0.0001). Stress-CMR with regadenoson is feasible, providing diagnostic information in a referral population. Regadenoson had an excellent safety profile and better tolerability than adenosine, with no serious immediate complications and low incidence of non-severe complications. Only inducible ischaemia and previous history of COPD or asthma were associated with complications after regadenoson-CMR. The incidence of minor symptoms was low.