↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a review of the dangers and difficulties in MR scanning and attempts to improve safety

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a review of the dangers and difficulties in MR scanning and attempts to improve safety
Published in
Insights into Imaging, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13244-017-0556-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pei Ghim Poh, Charlene Liew, Colin Yeo, Le Roy Chong, Andrew Tan, Angeline Poh

Abstract

An increasing number of patients are being treated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), many of which are MR conditional. There is a lack of literature on the safe scanning of MR conditional CIEDs. This review article discusses MR imaging safety in patients with implanted CIEDs. Guidelines on safe use and indications of imaging patients with MR conditional CIEDs are described, followed by a pictorial essay of the radiographic features of these devices. We also discuss the challenges of monitoring the patient in the MR environment, advances in MRI conditional imaging of devices, availability, limitations and workflow including vendor-specific and other collaborative efforts to simplify the scanning process. Radiologists must be able to facilitate the safe utilization of MR imaging in patients who have CIEDs. A thorough knowledge of the hazards of imaging non-MR compatible devices is required as well as knowing how to correctly identify and manage the imaging of patients with MR conditional CIEDs. Finally, we propose steps required to facilitate the safe scanning of patients with MR conditional CIEDs adopted in our institution and a contingency plan in the event that an inadvertent MR scan of a patient with a MRI unsafe CIED should occur. • Risks of MR imaging in patients who have CIEDs have been worked around. • There are many technical limitations in enabling safe MR scanning of CIEDs. • Radiological identification of MRI-conditional status of CIEDs is useful. • Standardizing conditions for safe MRI scanning is important. • We offer example algorithms for facilitating safe MRI scanning of CIEDs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 17%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Physics and Astronomy 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 24 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,968,718
of 24,461,214 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#90
of 1,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,173
of 321,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,461,214 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.