Effects of 1.5-T versus 3-T magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses: is there a difference in postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome? Evaluation in a fetal population with left-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia

Background The utilization of 3-T magnetic field strength in obstetric imaging is increasingly common. It is important to ensure that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with higher magnetic field strength is safe for the fetus. Comparison of neurodevelopmental outcome in neonates undergoing prenatal MR imaging with 1.5-T versus 3-T is of interest but has not yet been examined.Objective We hypothesized no clinically meaningful difference in neurodevelopmental outcome between fetuses undergoing 1.5-T versus 3-T fetal MR imaging. As imaging a normal fetus for research purposes is illegal in Pennsylvania, this study was conducted in a population of fetuses with left congenital diaphragmatic hernia (left-CDH).Materials and methods A retrospective review of neurodevelopmental outcome of fetuses with left-CDH scanned at 1.5-T (n=75) versus 3-T (n=25) magnetic field strength between July of 2012 and December of 2019 was performed. Neurodevel-opmental outcomes were assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd Edition (BSID-III).Results There were no statistical differences in median age of assessment (1.5-T: 18 [12, 25] versus 3-T: 21 [11, 26], P=0.79), in mean BSID-III cognitive (1.5-T: 91 +/- 14 versus 3-T: 90 +/- 16, P=0.82), language (1.5-T: 92 +/- 20 versus 3-T: 91 +/- 20, P=0.91), and motor composite (1.5-T: 89 +/- 15 versus 3-T: 87 +/- 18, P=0.59) scores, subscales scores (for all, P > 0.50), or in risk of abnormal neuromuscular exam (P=0.29) between neonates with left-CDH undergoing a 1.5-T versus 3-T MR imaging during fetal life. Additionally, the distribution of patients with average, mildly delayed, and severely delayed BSID-III scores was similar between the two groups (for all, P > 0.50). The overall distribution of the composite scores in this CDH population was similar to the general population independent of exposure to 1.5-T or 3-T fetal MR imaging. Two 3-T patients (8%) and five 1.5-T patients (7%) scored within the significant delayed range for all BSID-III domains. Subjects with lower observed-to-expected fetal lung volume (O/E FLV) and postnatal need for ECMO had lower cognitive, language, motor, and subscales scores (for all, P < 0.03) regardless of being imaged at 1.5-T versus 3-T.Conclusion This preliminary study suggests that, compared to 1.5-T MR imaging, fetal exposure to 3-T MR imaging does not increase the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment in fetuses with left-CDH. Additional MR imaging studies in larger CDH cohorts and other fetal populations are needed to replicate and extend the present findings.