Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
I would like to congratulate the British Cardiovascular Society and the Clinical Imaging Board for this important work. The recommendations should be implemented without delay by all clinical speciality societies and indeed clinical directors or clinical leads of all hospital networks.
I would like to add to the examples of unfair treatment of patients carried due to outdated and misplaced safety concerns about MRI and implantable cardiac devices in the article. In my previous clinical posts I have seen elderly patients undergoing unnecessary invasive procedures such as ERCP and EUS when the decisions at MDT were influenced by perceived MRI risk.
I first complained about this nonsense as an intern in 2006. In 2018 no clinician or radiology department should be permitted to refuse to request or perform an MRI in patients with cardiac devices without providing a specific concern.
A multitude of good-natured arguments with radiology departments as an NCHD over the years.
10 September 2018
Donal B O'Connor
Clinical Assessor, Medical Products and Clinical Trials, Adjunct Lecturer in Surgery