Introduction: MRI has long been contraindicated in patients with CIED devices due to the risk of adverse eff ects through electromagnetic interference. Recent developments in engineering have led to the introduction of MRI conditional CIED devices that do not cause signifi cant clinical harm to patients undergoing MRI, when specifi c imaging conditions are met. Safe access to MRI has become a crucial need for patients with CIED devices. Aim: The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of how to manage patients with implanted CIED devices and to present a case report of a patient with CIED undergoing prostate MRI examination. Methods: This paper explores MRI Safety and the management of patients with implanted CIED devices through an extensive literature review and case presentation. The literature search was conducted using medical scientifi c electronic databases such as PubMed, Cinahl, Wiley Online Library and ScienceDirect. We examined a patient with a CIED device undergoing a prostate MRI examination. Results and discussion: We performed an examination of the described patient in accordance to the guidelines presented in this paper. The MR conditionality status was determined using the device identifi cation card and the manufacturer’s technical manual. The MRI examination of the patient was completed without complications; therefore, no adverse eff ects were reported. The MRI images were without artefacts. Conclusion: Recent clinical studies and published guidelines suggest that MRI of the patients with either an MRI conditional or MRI non-conditional CIED device is relatively safe under specifi c conditions. Multidisciplinary pre-procedure planning, a strict screening process, monitoring and device evaluation protocols are of key importance for ensuring safe MRI imaging in patients with CIED.

Materials and methods: Both cases were imaged using a GE Optima™ MR450w 1.5T scanner. A combination of anterior and posterior arrays were used. In both cases, patients were placed in the headfi rst prone position. Results and discussion: In the fi rst case, there was a red area on the skin and a white blister appeared after 15 minutes. A closed conducting loop was created in the patient’s body, which caused increased local temperature at the junction of her thighs. We could prevent this by using insulation, such as foam pads, which is one of eight steps for preventing MRI-induced skin burns. In the second case, there were red spots on the skin of the left and right thighs at the contact of the scrotum where a white blister appeared after 15 minutes. This could not have been prevented, even if we considered all the steps for preventing MRI-induced skin burns. Conclusion: I reported a case of burns on a small area of skin at the junction of the patient’s thighs, which we could have prevented by using insulation pads, and a case of burns on the skin at the contact of the scrotum, which we could not have prevented, even if we considered all the steps for preventing MRI-induced skin burns. However, we could have stopped the increase in the degree of the burn by recognising early signs.