Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System? : A meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional permanent pacemakers has increased significantly. In this meta-analysis, we examine the safety of MRI-conditional pacing systems in comparison with conventional systems.


METHODS
An electronic search was performed using major databases, including studies that compared the outcomes of interest between patients receiving MRI-conditional pacemakers (MRI group) versus conventional pacemakers (control group).


RESULTS
Six studies (5 retrospective and 1 prospective non-randomised) involving 2,118 adult patients were identified. The MRI-conditional pacemakers, deployed in 969 patients, were all from a single manufacturer (Medtronic Pacing System with 5086 leads). The rate of pacemaker lead dislodgement (atrial and ventricular) was significantly higher in the MRI group (3% vs. 1%, OR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26; 4.83), p = 0.008). The MRI group had a significantly higher rate of pericardial complications (2% vs. 1%, OR 4.23 (95% CI 1.18; 15.10), p = 0.03) and a numerically higher overall complication rate in comparison with the conventional group (6% vs. 3%, OR 2.02 (95% CI 0.88; 4.66), p = 0.10) but this was not statistically significant.


CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis, the rates of pacemaker lead dislodgement and pericardial complications were significantly higher with the Medtronic MRI-conditional pacing system.
['Shurrab|M|M|', 'Kaoutskaia|A|A|', 'Baranchuk|A|A|', 'Lau|C|C|', 'Singarajah|T|T|', 'Lashevsky|I|I|', 'Newman|D|D|', 'Healey|J S|JS|', 'Crystal|E|E|']
Complications meta-analysis Pacemakers MRI