Functional MRI Safety and Artifacts during Deep Brain Stimulation: Experience in 102 Patients

被引:53
作者
Boutet, Alexandre [1 ,2 ]
Rashid, Tanweer [3 ]
Hancu, Ileana [4 ]
Elias, Gavin J. B. [2 ]
Gramer, Robert M. [2 ]
Germann, Jurgen [2 ]
Dimarzio, Marisa [3 ]
Li, Bryan [2 ]
Paramanandam, Vijayashankar [2 ,4 ]
Prasad, Sreeram [2 ,4 ]
Ranjan, Manish [2 ]
Coblentz, Ailish [1 ,2 ]
Gwun, Dave [2 ]
Chow, Clement T. [2 ]
Maciel, Ricardo [2 ,4 ]
Soh, Derrick [2 ,4 ]
Fiveland, Eric [2 ,5 ]
Hodaie, Mojgan [2 ]
Kalia, Suneil K. [2 ]
Fasano, Alfonso [2 ,4 ]
Kucharczyk, Walter [1 ]
Pilitsis, Julie [3 ,6 ]
Lozano, Andres M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Med Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Hlth Network, Toronto Western Hosp, Div Neurosurg, 399 Bathurst St, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada
[3] Albany Med Coll, Dept Neurosci & Expt Therapeut, Albany, NY 12208 USA
[4] Univ Toronto, Toronto Western Hosp, UHN,Div Neurol, Edmond J Safra Program Parkinsons Dis Morton & Gl, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Krembil Brain Inst, GE Global Res Ctr Niskayuna, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Albany Med Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, Albany, NY USA
关键词
SUSCEPTIBILITY ARTIFACTS; SUBTHALAMIC NUCLEUS; PARKINSON-DISEASE; FIELD-STRENGTH; IN-VITRO; SYSTEMS; IMPLANT; DBS;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2019190546
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: With growing numbers of patients receiving deep brain stimulation (DBS), radiologists are encountering these neuro-modulation devices at an increasing rate. Current MRI safety guidelines, however, limit MRI access in these patients. Purpose: To describe an MRI (1.5 T and 3 T) experience and safety profile in a large cohort of participants with active DBS systems and characterize the hardware-related artifacts on images from functional MRI. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, study participants receiving active DBS underwent 1.5- or 3-T MRI (T1-weighted imaging and gradient-recalled echo [GRE]-echo-planar imaging [EPI]) between June 2017 and October 2018. Short- and long-term adverse events were tracked. The authors quantified DBS hardware-related artifacts on images from GRE-EPI (functional MRI) at the cranial coil wire and electrode contacts. Segmented artifacts were then transformed into standard space to define the brain areas affected by signal loss. Two-sample t tests were used to assess the difference in artifact size between 1.5- and 3-T MRI. Results: A total of 102 participants (mean age +/- standard deviation, 60 years +/- 11; 65 men) were evaluated. No MRI-related short- and long-term adverse events or acute changes were observed. DBS artifacts were most prominent near the electrode contacts and over the frontoparietal cortical area where the redundancy of the extension wire is placed subcutaneously. The mean electrode contact artifact diameter was 9.3 mm +/- 1.6, and 1.9% +/- 0.8 of the brain was obscured by the coil artifact. The coil artifacts were larger at 3 T than at 1.5 T, obscuring 2.1% +/- 0.7 and 1.4% +/- 0.7 of intracranial volume, respectively (P < .001). The superficial frontoparietal cortex and deep structures neighboring the electrode contacts were most commonly obscured. Conclusion: With a priori local safety testing, patients receiving deep brain stimulation may safely undergo 1.5- and 3-T MRI. Deep brain stimulation hardware-related artifacts only affect a small proportion of the brain. (C) RSNA, 2019
引用
收藏
页码:174 / 183
页数:10
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2015, MRI GUIDELINES MEDTR, P44
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2017, IMAGEREADY MRI GUIDE, P613
  • [3] Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimeter of MRI-related implant heating
    Baker, KB
    Tkach, JA
    Nyenhuis, JA
    Phillips, M
    Shellock, FG
    Gonzalez-Martinez, J
    Rezai, AR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2004, 20 (02) : 315 - 320
  • [4] REDUCTION OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-RELATED HEATING IN DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION LEADS USING A LEAD MANAGEMENT DEVICE
    Baker, Kenneth B.
    Tkach, Jean
    Hall, John D.
    Nyenhuis, John A.
    Shellock, Frank G.
    Rezai, Ali R.
    [J]. NEUROSURGERY, 2005, 57 (04) : 392 - 396
  • [5] Variability in RF-induced heating of a deep brain stimulation implant across MR systems
    Baker, Kenneth B.
    Tkach, Jean A.
    Phillips, Micheal D.
    Rezai, Ali R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2006, 24 (06) : 1236 - 1242
  • [6] Bilateral neuro stimulation systems used for deep brain stimulation: in vitro study of MRI-related heating at 1.5 T and implications for clinical imaging of the brain
    Bhidayasiri, R
    Bronstein, JM
    Sinha, S
    Krahl, SE
    Ahn, S
    Behnke, EJ
    Cohen, MS
    Frysinger, R
    Shellock, FG
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2005, 23 (04) : 549 - 555
  • [7] Hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation: a ten year experience
    Blomstedt, P
    Hariz, MI
    [J]. ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2005, 147 (10) : 1061 - 1064
  • [8] 3-Tesla MRI of deep brain stimulation patients: safety assessment of coils and pulse sequences
    Boutet, Alexandre
    Hancu, Ileana
    Saha, Utpal
    Crawley, Adrian
    Xu, David S.
    Ranjan, Manish
    Hlasny, Eugen
    Chen, Robert
    Foltz, Warren
    Sammartino, Francesco
    Coblentz, Ailish
    Kucharczyk, Walter
    Lozano, Andres M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 132 (02) : 586 - 594
  • [9] Functional MRI with active, fully implanted, deep brain stimulation systems: Safety and experimental confounds
    Carmichael, David W.
    Pinto, Serge
    Limousin-Dowsey, Patricia
    Thobois, Stephane
    Allen, Philip J.
    Lemieux, Louis
    Yousry, Tarek
    Thornton, John S.
    [J]. NEUROIMAGE, 2007, 37 (02) : 508 - 517
  • [10] 1.5T versus 3T MRI for targeting subthalamic nucleus for deep brain stimulation
    Cheng, Cheng-Hsin
    Huang, Hsing-Ming
    Lin, Hung-Lin
    Chiou, Shang-Ming
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2014, 28 (04) : 467 - 470