Magnetic resonance-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian perspective on the prevalence of mixed-brand systems over time

The historical restriction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been lifted by certified MRI-conditional systems in recent years. Mixed-brand CIED systems consisting of a generator from one manufacturer and at least one lead from another manufacturer are not certified for MRI. We evaluated the temporal trend in the prevalence of mixed-brand systems in the era of MRI-conditional systems. Data were analyzed on 5853 CIEDs implanted de novo between 2012 and 2022 in 81 Italian centers linked to the nationwide Home Monitoring Expert Alliance network. The percentage of mixed-brand implants was calculated by device type (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD], cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT] device) and over time. A mixed-brand system was implanted in 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6-4.6%) of analyzed patients or, by device type, in 4.5% (3.5-5.7%) of pacemaker patients, 1.1% (0.7-1.7%) of ICD patients, and 6.8% (5.7-7.9%) of CRT pacemaker/defibrillator patients (p < 0.001). Prevalence of mixed-brand implants exhibited significant temporal fluctuations, first declining from 6.6% (2012-2014) to 1.3% (2019), and then increasing to 5.1% (2022). Temporal changes were statistically significant for pacemakers (p < 0.001) and CRT devices (p = 0.001), but not for ICDs (p = 0.438). In the decade between 2012 and 2022, mixed-brand CIED systems were more prevalent in patients treated with pacemakers and CRT devices than in ICD recipients. A decline in the prevalence of mixed-brand systems was observed after the introduction of MRI-conditional systems, reaching a minimum in 2019, followed by a progressive increase in the subsequent years.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73403-x
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Magnetic resonance-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian perspective on the prevalence of mixed-brand systems over time

Eduardo Celentano, Massimo Giammaria, Valéria Calvi, Luca Poggio et al.
Scientific Reports
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Magnetic resonance-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian perspective on the prevalence of mixed-brand systems over time

Eduardo Celentano, Massimo Giammaria, Valéria Calvi, Luca Poggio, Gennaro Miracapillo, Claudia Amellone, Luca Tomasi, Massimiliano Marini, Ennio Pisanò, Giampiero Maglia, Fabrizio Caravati, Stefano Pedretti, Davide Saporito, Daniele Giacopelli, Gerardo Nigro, Marzia Giaccardi, Marcello Piacenti, Francesco Solimene, Matteo Baroni, Francesca M. Notarangelo, Antonio Curnis, Gaetano Senatore, Paolo Pastori, Mauro Biffi, Alessio Gargaro, Giovanni Rovaris, Gabriele Zanotto, Irene Baldassarre, Enrica Talini, Lorenzo Spighi, Luca Bontempi
article en

Abstract

The historical restriction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been lifted by certified MRI-conditional systems in recent years. Mixed-brand CIED systems consisting of a generator from one manufacturer and at least one lead from another manufacturer are not certified for MRI. We evaluated the temporal trend in the prevalence of mixed-brand systems in the era of MRI-conditional systems. Data were analyzed on 5853 CIEDs implanted de novo between 2012 and 2022 in 81 Italian centers linked to the nationwide Home Monitoring Expert Alliance network. The percentage of mixed-brand implants was calculated by device type (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD], cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT] device) and over time. A mixed-brand system was implanted in 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6-4.6%) of analyzed patients or, by device type, in 4.5% (3.5-5.7%) of pacemaker patients, 1.1% (0.7-1.7%) of ICD patients, and 6.8% (5.7-7.9%) of CRT pacemaker/defibrillator patients (p < 0.001). Prevalence of mixed-brand implants exhibited significant temporal fluctuations, first declining from 6.6% (2012-2014) to 1.3% (2019), and then increasing to 5.1% (2022). Temporal changes were statistically significant for pacemakers (p < 0.001) and CRT devices (p = 0.001), but not for ICDs (p = 0.438). In the decade between 2012 and 2022, mixed-brand CIED systems were more prevalent in patients treated with pacemakers and CRT devices than in ICD recipients. A decline in the prevalence of mixed-brand systems was observed after the introduction of MRI-conditional systems, reaching a minimum in 2019, followed by a progressive increase in the subsequent years.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi (IT), Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (IT), Ospedale San Paolo (IT), Ospedale Maggiore (IT), Ospedale Santa Chiara (IT), Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda (IT), Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona (IT), AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana (IT), IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola (IT), Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia (IT), Ospedale Civile Di Ivrea (IT), Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo (IT), Ospedale Santa Maria Annunziata (IT), Humanitas Gavazzeni (IT), Ospedale Infermi di Rimini (IT), Policlinico Universitario di Catania (IT), Ospedale di Parma (IT), Ospedale Misericordia - Grosseto (IT), Ospedale Martini (IT), Ospedale Monaldi (IT), Ospedale degli Infermi (IT), Ospedale Vito Fazzi (IT), Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IT), Azienda Usl Toscana Centro (IT), Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio (IT), Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Santi Paolo e Carlo
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.