Non-invasive characterization of pleural and pericardial effusions using T1 mapping by magnetic resonance imaging.

AIMS: Differentiating exudative from transudative effusions is clinically important and is currently performed via biochemical analysis of invasively obtained samples using Light's criteria. Diagnostic performance is however limited. Biochemical composition can be measured with T1 mapping using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and hence may offer diagnostic utility for assessment of effusions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A phantom consisting of serially diluted human albumin solutions (25-200 g/L) was constructed and scanned at 1.5 T to derive the relationship between fluid T1 values and fluid albumin concentration. Native T1 values of pleural and pericardial effusions from 86 patients undergoing clinical CMR studies retrospectively analysed at four tertiary centres. Effusions were classified using Light's criteria where biochemical data was available (n = 55) or clinically in decompensated heart failure patients with presumed transudative effusions (n = 31). Fluid T1 and protein values were inversely correlated both in the phantom (r = -0.992) and clinical samples (r = -0.663, P < 0.0001). T1 values were lower in exudative compared to transudative pleural (3252 ± 207 ms vs. 3596 ± 213 ms, P < 0.0001) and pericardial (2749 ± 373 ms vs. 3337 ± 245 ms, P < 0.0001) effusions. The diagnostic accuracy of T1 mapping for detecting transudates was very good for pleural and excellent for pericardial effusions, respectively [area under the curve 0.88, (95% CI 0.764-0.996), P = 0.001, 79% sensitivity, 89% specificity, and 0.93, (95% CI 0.855-1.000), P < 0.0001, 95% sensitivity; 81% specificity]. CONCLUSION: Native T1 values of effusions measured using CMR correlate well with protein concentrations and may be helpful for discriminating between transudates and exudates. This may help focus the requirement for invasive diagnostic sampling, avoiding unnecessary intervention in patients with unequivocal transudative effusions.

Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

AIMS: Many cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are not approved by regulators for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Even following generator exchange to an approved magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional model, many systems remain classified 'non-MR conditional' due to the leads. This classification makes patient access to MRI challenging, but there is no evidence of increased clinical risk. We compared the effect of MRI on non-MR conditional and MR-conditional pacemaker and defibrillator leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing clinical 1.5T MRI with pacemakers and defibrillators in three centres over 5 years were included. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols were similar for MR-conditional and non-MR conditional systems. Devices were interrogated pre- and immediately post-scan, and at follow-up, and adverse clinical events recorded. Lead parameter changes peri-scan were stratified by MR-conditional labelling. A total of 1148 MRI examinations were performed in 970 patients (54% non-MR conditional systems, 39% defibrillators, 15% pacing-dependent) with 2268 leads. There were no lead-related adverse clinical events, and no clinically significant immediate or late lead parameter changes following MRI in either MR-conditional or non-MR conditional leads. Small reductions in atrial and right ventricular sensed amplitudes and impedances were similar between groups, with no difference in the proportion of leads with parameter changes greater than pre-defined thresholds (7.1%, 95% confidence interval: 6.1-8.3). CONCLUSIONS: There was no increased risk of MRI in patients with non-MR conditional pacemaker or defibrillator leads when following recommended protocols. Standardizing MR conditions for all leads would significantly improve access to MRI by enabling patients to be scanned in non-specialist centres, with no discernible incremental risk.

MRI for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: simplifying complexity with a 'one-stop' service model.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are disadvantaged because of poor access to MRI scans, leading to late and misdiagnosis particularly for cancer and neurological disease. New technology allied to tested protocols now allows safe MRI scanning of such patients; however, logistical barriers persist. AIM: To deliver a streamlined sustainable service that provides timely MRI scans to patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: Patients requested a 'one-stop' service for MRI, whereby devices could be reprogrammed and scans acquired at a single location and visit. To provide this 'one-stop' service, we trained a team including administrators, physicians, cardiac physiologists and radiographers. A standard protocol was used to prevent unnecessary request refusals and delays to scheduling. Service volume, waiting time and safety were analysed 6 months before and 2 years after service redesign. Waiting times for internal and external inpatient referrals plus time to treatment for patients on a cancer pathway were analysed. RESULTS: 215 MRI scans were performed over 2 years. After service redesign, MRI provision increased six-fold to 20 times the national average with reduced waiting time from 60 to 15 days and no adverse events. Departmental throughput was maintained. 85 (40%) referrals were external. 41 (19%) inpatients were scanned, reducing bed-stay by 3 days for internal referrals. 24 (11%) scans were for suspected cancer, 83% allowed treatment within the national standard of 62 days. There was no preintervention service for either inpatients or suspected cancer investigation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a 'one-stop' service model to provide MRI for patients with CIEDs is safe, streamlined, scalable and has reduced delays making economic and clinical sense. Protocols and checklists are available at mrimypacemaker.com.