Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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. Neurodevelopmental 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Victoria T, Johnson AM, Edgar JC et al (2016) Comparison between 1.5-T and 3-T MRI for fetal imaging: is there an advantage to Imaging with a higher field strength? AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chapman T, Alazraki AL, Eklund MJ (2018) A survey of pediatric diagnostic radiologists in North America: current practices in fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 48:1924–1935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chartier AL, Bouvier MJ, McPherson DR et al (2019) The safety of maternal and fetal MRI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:1170–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cannie MM, De Keyzer F, Van Laere S et al (2016) Potential heating effect in the gravid uterus by using 3-T MR imaging protocols: experimental study in miniature pigs. Radiology 279:754–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Danzer E, Hedrick HL (2014) Controversies in the management of severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19:376–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meyers ML, Garcia JR, Blough KL et al (2018) Fetal lung volumes by MRI: normal weekly values from 18 through 38 weeks’ gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:432–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Victoria T, Danzer E, Adzick NS (2013) Use of ultrasound and MRI for evaluation of lung volumes in fetuses with isolated left congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Pediatr Surg 22:30–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wild KT, Schindewolf E, Hedrick HL et al (2022) The genomics of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a 10-year retrospective review. J Pediatr 248:108-113e102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrera CA, Francavilla ML, Serai SD et al (2020) Specific absorption rate and specific energy dose: comparison of 1.5-T versus 3.0-T fetal MRI. Radiology 295:664–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Danzer E, Hedrick HL (2011) Neurodevelopmental and neurofunctional outcomes in children with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Early Hum Dev 87:625–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Danzer E, Gerdes M, D’Agostino JA et al (2015) Neurodevelopmental outcome at one year of age in congenital diaphragmatic hernia infants not treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Pediatr Surg 50:898–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Danzer E, Gerdes M, D’Agostino JA et al (2013) Preschool neurological assessment in congenital diaphragmatic hernia survivors: outcome and perinatal factors associated with neurodevelopmental impairment. Early Hum Dev 89:393–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danzer E, Gerdes M, D’Agostino JA et al (2013) Longitudinal neurodevelopmental and neuromotor outcome in congenital diaphragmatic hernia patients in the first 3 years of life. J Perinatol 33:893–898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaimes C, Delgado J, Cunnane MB et al (2019) Does 3-T fetal MRI induce adverse acoustic effects in the neonate? A preliminary study comparing postnatal auditory test performance of fetuses scanned at 1.5 and 3 T. Pediatr Radiol 49:37–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Victoria T, Bebbington MW, Danzer E et al (2012) Use of magnetic resonance imaging in prenatal prognosis of the fetus with isolated left congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Prenat Diagn 32:715–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruano R, Lazar DA, Cass DL et al (2014) Fetal lung volume and quantification of liver herniation by magnetic resonance imaging in isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:662–669

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Victoria T, Jaramillo D, Roberts TP et al (2014) Fetal magnetic resonance imaging: jumping from 1.5 to 3 tesla (preliminary experience). Pediatr Radiol 44:376–386 (quiz 373–375)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Enrico Danzer, Elizabeth Eppley,  Casey Hoffman, Matthew A. Goldshore, N. Scott Adzick & Holly L. Hedrick

  2. Department of Radiology, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    J. Christopher Edgar

  3. Department of Pediatric Imaging Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical College, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02116, USA

    Teresa Victoria

Authors
  1. Enrico Danzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Eppley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Christopher Edgar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Casey Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew A. Goldshore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. Scott Adzick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Holly L. Hedrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Teresa Victoria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa Victoria.

Ethics declarations

Conficts of interest

None

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danzer, E., Eppley, E., Edgar, J.C. et al. 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. Pediatr Radiol 53, 1085–1091 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05629-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05629-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation