nach oben

Erschienen in:

09.08.2023 | Breast

Breast MRI in patients with implantable loop recorder: initial experience

verfasst von: Noam Nissan, Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Hila Fruchtman, Jill Gluskin, Sarah Eskreis-Winkler, Joao V. Horvat, Ioanna Kosmidou, Alicia Meng, Katja Pinker, Maxine S. Jochelson

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the feasibility of breast MRI exams and guided biopsies in patients with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) as well as the impact ILRs may have on image interpretation.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study examined breast MRIs of patients with ILR, from April 2008 to September 2022. Radiological reports and electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic characteristics, safety concerns, and imaging findings. MR images were analyzed and compared statistically for artifact quantification on the various pulse sequences.

Results

Overall, 40/82,778 (0.049%) MRIs during the study period included ILR. All MRIs were completed without early termination. No patient-related or device-related adverse events occurred. ILRs were most commonly located in the left lower-inner quadrant (64.6%). The main artifact was a signal intensity (SI) void in a dipole formation in the ILR bed with or without areas of peripheral high SI. Artifacts appeared greatest in the cranio-caudal axis (p < 0.001), followed by the anterior–posterior axis (p < 0.001), and then the right–left axis. High peripheral rim-like SI artifacts appeared on the post-contrast and subtracted T1-weighted images, mimicking suspicious enhancement. Artifacts were most prominent on diffusion-weighted (p < 0.001), followed by T2-weighted and T1-weighted images. In eight patients, suspicious findings were found on MRI, resulting in four additional malignant lesions. Of six patients with left breast cancer, the tumor was completely visible in five cases and partially obscured in one.

Conclusion

Breast MRI is feasible and safe among patients with ILR and may provide a significant diagnostic value, albeit with localized, characteristic artifacts.

Clinical relevance statement

Indicated breast MRI exams and guided biopsies can be safely performed in patients with implantable loop recorder. Nevertheless, radiologists should be aware of associated limitations including limited assessment of the inner left breast and pseudo-enhancement artifacts.

Key Points

• Breast MRI in patients with an implantable loop recorder is an infrequent, feasible, and safe procedure.

• Despite limited breast visualization of the implantable loop recorder bed and characteristic artifacts, MRI depicted additional lesions in 8/40 (20%) of cases, half of which were malignant.

• Breast MRI in patients with an implantable loop recorder should be performed when indicated, taking into consideration typical associated artifacts.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Bisignani A, De Bonis S, Mancuso L et al (2018) Implantable loop recorder in clinical practice. J Arrhythmia. 35(1):25–32CrossRef

Radovanović NN, Pavlović SU, Kirćanski B et al (2021) Diagnostic value of implantable loop recorders in patients with unexplained syncope or palpitations. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/anec.12864CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Solano A, Menozzi C, Maggi R et al (2004) Incidence, diagnostic yield and safety of the implantable loop-recorder to detect the mechanism of syncope in patients with and without structural heart disease. Eur Heart J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2004.05.013CrossRefPubMed

Steinberger S, Margolies LR (2017) The implantable loop recorder and its mammographic appearance: a case based approach. Clin Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.01.006CrossRefPubMed

Mayo RC, Leung J (2017) Novel wireless cardiac monitor located in the breast: imaging appearance and function. Breast J 23(5):599–601CrossRefPubMed

Nia ES, Huang ML, Sun SX et al (2021) The mammographic appearance of the BioMonitor implantable loop recorder. Clin Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.11.051CrossRefPubMed

Paap E, Witjes M, Van Landsveld-Verhoeven C et al (2016) Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Pauly KB et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging near metal implants. J Magn Reson Imaging 32(4):773–87CrossRefPubMed

Yang E, Suzuki M, Nazarian S, Halperin HR (2022) Magnetic resonance imaging safety in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Trends Cardiovasc Med 32(7):440–447CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gimbel JR (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging of implantable cardiac rhythm devices at 3.0 tesla. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01117.x

11.

Hilbert S, Jahnke C, Loebe S et al (2018) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a device-dependent imaging strategy for improved image quality. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex243CrossRefPubMed

12.

Reiter T, Weiss I, Weber OM, Bauer WR (2022) Signal voids of active cardiac implants at 3.0 T CMR. Sci Rep 12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09690-zCrossRef

13.

Vuorinen AM, Lehmonen L, Karvonen J et al (2022) Reducing cardiac implantable electronic device–induced artefacts in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09059-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Nazarian S, Beinart R, Halperin HR (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging and implantable devices. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.000116CrossRef

15.

van der Graaf AWM, Bhagirath P, Götte MJW (2014) MRI and cardiac implantable electronic devices; current status and required safety conditions. Netherlands Hear J 22(6):269–76CrossRef

16.

Daimiel Naranjo I, Lo Gullo R, Saccarelli C et al (2021) Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging with synthetic b-values in breast tumors: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced and multiparametric MRI. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07094-zCrossRefPubMed

17.

Nissan N, Moss Massasa EE, Bauer E et al (2023) Pacemaker in patients undergoing mammography : a limitation for breast cancer diagnosis ? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 8–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13524

18.

Bovenschulte H, Schlüter-Brust K, Liebig T et al (2012) MRI in patients with pacemakers: overview and procedural management. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109(15):270–275PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Blaschke F, Lacour P, Walter T et al (2016) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with an implantable loop recorder. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/anec.12333CrossRefPubMed

20.

Gimbel JR, Zarghami J, Machado C, Wilkoff BL (2005) Safe scanning, but frequent artifacts mimicking bradycardia and tachycardia during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with an implantable loop recorder (ILR). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-474X.2005.00056.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Runge M, Ibrahim ESH, Bogun F et al (2019) Metal artifact reduction in cardiovascular MRI for accurate myocardial scar assessment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213(3):555–561CrossRefPubMed

22.

Stojanovska J, Runge M, Mahani MG et al (2020) Cardiac MRI for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21883CrossRefPubMed

23.

Nazarian S, Halperin HR (2009) How to perform magnetic resonance imaging on patients with implantable cardiac arrhythmia devices. Hear Rhythm. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.10.021CrossRef

24.

Wong JA, Yee R, Gula LJ et al (2008) Feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with an implantable loop recorder. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.00994.xCrossRefPubMed

25.

Galley J, Sutter R, Stern C, et al (2020) Diagnosis of periprosthetic hip joint infection using MRI with metal artifact reduction at 1.5 T. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191901

26.

Hargreaves BA, Daniel BL (2012) Metals in MR-mammography: how to deal with it? Eur J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(12)70021-9CrossRefPubMed

27.

Borde T, Wu M, Ruschke S et al (2022) Assessing breast density using the chemical-shift encoding-based proton density fat fraction in 3-T MRI. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09341-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Solomon E, Nissan N, Schmidt R et al (2016) Removing silicone artifacts in diffusion-weighted breast MRI by means of shift-resolved spatiotemporally encoding. Magn Reson Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Genson CC, Blane CE, Helvie MA et al (2007) Effects on breast MRI of artifacts caused by metallic tissue marker clips. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1254CrossRefPubMed

30.

Eskreis-Winkler S, Simon K, Reichman M et al (2020) Dipole modeling of multispectral signal for detecting metallic biopsy markers during MRI-guided breast biopsy: a pilot study. Magn Reson Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28017CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lee EM, Ibrahim ESH, Bs ND et al (2021) Improving MR image quality in patients with metallic implants. Radiographics. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021200092CrossRefPubMed

32.

Lambert J, Steelandt T, Heywang-Köbrunner SH et al (2021) Long-term MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy results of 600 single-center procedures. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07392-6CrossRefPubMed

33.

Sarp S, Fioretta G, Verkooijen HM et al (2007) Tumor location of the lower-inner quadrant is associated with an impaired survival for women with early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9231-5CrossRefPubMed

34.

Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB et al (2011) Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7364CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Kapsner LA, Ohlmeyer S, Folle L et al (2022) Automated artifact detection in abbreviated dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI-derived maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of the breast. Eur Radiol 32:5997–6007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08626-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Partridge SC, Nissan N, Rahbar H et al (2017) Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: clinical applications and emerging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):337–355CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lo Gullo R, Sevilimedu V, Baltzer P et al (2022) A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the implementation of breast diffusion-weighted imaging in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 32:6588–6597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08833-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Le Bihan D, Poupon C, Amadon A (2006) Lethimonnier F (2006) Artifacts and pitfalls in diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 24(3):478–88CrossRefPubMed

39.

Furman-Haran E, Eyal E, Shapiro-Feinberg M et al (2012) Advantages and drawbacks of breast DTI. Eur J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(12)70017-7CrossRefPubMed

40.

Granlund KL, Staroswiecki E, Alley MT et al (2014) High-resolution, three-dimensional diffusion-weighted breast imaging using DESS. Magn Reson Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2013.12.014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Solomon E, Nissan N, Furman-Haran E et al (2015) Overcoming limitations in diffusion-weighted MRI of breast by spatio-temporal encoding. Magn Reson Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25344CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Solomon E, Liberman G, Nissan N et al (2020) Diffusion-weighted breast MRI of malignancies with submillimeter resolution and immunity to artifacts by spatiotemporal encoding at 3T. Magn Reson Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Sanderink WBG, Teuwen J, Appelman L et al (2021) Comparison of simultaneous multi-slice single-shot DWI to readout-segmented DWI for evaluation of breast lesions at 3T MRI. Eur J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109626CrossRefPubMed

44.

Lee PK, Yoon D, Sandberg JK et al (2022) Volumetric and multispectral DWI near metallic implants using a non-linear phase Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill diffusion preparation. Magn Reson Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Koch KM, Bhave S, Gaddipati A et al (2018) Multispectral diffusion-weighted imaging near metal implants. Magn Reson Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26737CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Breast MRI in patients with implantable loop recorder: initial experience
verfasst von: Noam Nissan
Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui
Hila Fruchtman
Jill Gluskin
Sarah Eskreis-Winkler
Joao V. Horvat
Ioanna Kosmidou
Alicia Meng
Katja Pinker
Maxine S. Jochelson
Publikationsdatum: 09.08.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10025-3

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Breast MRI in patients with implantable loop recorder: initial experience