Indications for MRI have grown considerably in recent years. However, many patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices are denied imaging due to physician misinterpretation of the risks associated with MRI. This review discusses the theoretical basis for the perceived risk by exploring preclinical literature. It then presents a detailed examination of the true rates of adverse events in clinical studies across both MR nonconditional (legacy) and MR conditional devices. Indeed, many of these adverse events are rare, nonexistent, and/or clinically insignificant in the wealth of published data. The authors then address image quality and the constituents of a safety checklist that institutions should consider when performing MRI in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device. Lastly, the authors conclude with an overview of future directions for advancement in the field.

BackgroundEpicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is hypothesized to alter atherosclerotic plaque composition, with potential development of high‐risk plaque (HRP). EAT can be measured by volumetric assessment (EAT‐v) or linear thickness (EAT‐t). We performed a systematic review and random‐effects meta‐analysis to assess the association of EAT with HRP and whether this association is dependent on the measurement method used.Methods and ResultsElectronic databases were systematically searched up to October 2016. Studies reporting HRP by computed tomography or intracoronary imaging and studies measuring EAT‐v or EAT‐t were included. Odds ratios were extracted from multivariable models reporting the association of EAT with HRP and described as pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analysis was stratified by EAT measurement method. Nine studies (n=3772 patients) were included with 7 measuring EAT‐v and 2 measuring EAT‐t. Increasing EAT was significantly associated with the presence of HRP (odds ratio: 1.26 [95% CI, 1.11–1.43]; P<0.001). Patients with HRP had higher EAT‐v than those without (weighted mean difference: 28.3 mL [95% CI, 18.8–37.8 mL]; P<0.001). EAT‐v was associated with HRP (odds ratio: 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06–1.33]; P<0.001); however, EAT‐t was not (odds ratio: 3.09 [95% CI, 0.56–17]; P=0.2). Estimates remained significant when adjusted for small‐study effect bias (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03–1.28]; P=0.04).ConclusionsIncreasing EAT is associated with the presence of HRP, and patients with HRP have higher quantified EAT‐v. The association of EAT‐v with HRP is significant compared with EAT‐t; however, a larger scale study is still required, and further evaluation is needed to assess whether EAT may be a potential therapeutic target for novel pharmaceutical agents.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/. Unique identifier: CRD42017055473.