Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 1923–1928 | Cite as

Short-term side-effects of brain MR examination at 7 T: a single-centre experience

  • M. Cosottini
  • D. Frosini
  • L. Biagi
  • I. Pesaresi
  • M. Costagli
  • G. Tiberi
  • M. Symms
  • M. Tosetti
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Objective

To study patient tolerability of brain imaging that employs an ultrahigh field (7 T) MR system

Methods

We examined 180 subjects that underwent brain MR examination at 7 T. A tolerability test consisting of two parts (during patient table motion and during the examination) was administered to all subjects in order to monitor their discomfort. The scores range from 0 to 5 for the first part, and from 0 to 10 for the second part, the total score of each subject therefore ranging from 0 (no side effects reported) to 15 (lowest tolerability)

Results

A total of 51 % of subjects reported at least one side effect but all were mild in intensity and did not require examination interruption. No serious adverse event was reported. The total score (mean ± standard deviation) was 1.1 ± 1.5 out of 15 (mean score 0.4 ± 0.7 out of 5 during patient table motion and 0.7 ± 1.1 out of 10 during MR).

Patient discomfort was not related to gender or health status, but it was reduced with time after system installation with increasing operator experience in performing UHF MR examinations.

Conclusions

Ultrahigh field MRI is well tolerated without excessive discomfort to subjects.

Key Points

7-T MRI is well tolerated with low incidence of side effects

The subjects’ discomfort during 7-T MRI is reduced as the operators’ experience increases

• 7-T MRI is practicable in healthy subjects and patients with neurodegenerative diseases

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Tolerability Side effects 7 T Prospective study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Mirco Cosottini. Mark Symms, author of this manuscript, declares relationships with the following companies: General Electric Healthcare Systems. The others authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by the Italian Ministry of Health (RF-2009-1546281) and co-founded by the Tuscany Region. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: prospective, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Knopp MV (2011) Clinical applications of ultra-high field 7T MR – moving to FDA/EU approval: potential clinical applications for ultra-high field MR. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med 19Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Electro Technical Commission (2002) Medical electrical equipment—Part 2–33: particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. IEC 60601-2-33Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United States Food and Drug Administration (2003) Guidance for industry and FDA staff: criteria for significant risk investigations of magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) http://www.ismrm.org.
  5. 5.
    van Nierop LE, Slottje P, Kingma H, Kromhout H (2013) MRI-related static magnetic stray fields and postural body sway: a double-blind randomized crossover study. Magn Reson Med 70:232–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schenck JF (2005) Physical interactions of static magnetic fields with living tissues. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 87:185–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kangarlu A, Robitaille P (2000) Biological effects and health implications in magnetic resonance imaging. Concepts Magn Reson 12:321–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins CM, Li S, Smith MB (1998) SAR and B1 field distributions in a heterogeneous human head model within a birdcage coil. Magn Reson Med 40:847–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Machata AM, Willschke H, Kabon B, Prayer D, Marhofer P (2009) Effect of brain magnetic resonance imaging on body core temperature in sedated infants and children Br J Anaesth 102:385–389Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryan YF, Templeton TW, Nick TG, Szafran M, Tung A (2006) Brain magnetic resonance imaging increases core body temperature in sedated children Anesth Analg 102:1674–1679Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Lier ALHMW, Kotte ANTJ, Raaymakers BW, Lagendijk JJW, van den Berg CAT (2012) Radiofrequency heating induced by 7 T head MRI: thermal assessment using discrete vasculature or Pennes’ bioheat equation. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:795–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collins CM, Liu W, Wang J, Gruetter R, Vaughan JT, Ugurbil K, Smith MB (2004) Temperature and SAR calculations for a human head within volume and surface coils at 64 and 300 MHz. J Magn Reson Imaging 19:650–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heilmaier C, Theysohn JM, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Ladd ME, Ladd SC (2011) A large-scale study on subjective perception of discomfort during 7 and 1.5 T MRI examinations. Bioelectromagnetics 32:610–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Versluis MJ, Teeuwisse WM, Kan HE, van Buchem MA, Webb AG, van Osch MJ (2013) Subject tolerance of 7 T MRI examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 38(3):722–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frosini D, Pesaresi I, Biagi L, Dolce G, Costagli M, Tiberi G, Stara R, Tosetti M, Cosottini M (2013) Safety protocol for monitoring side-effects at 7 T. In: Proceedings of ISMRM workshop on ultra high field MRI, Noordwijk aan Zee, the Netherlands, 2–5 March 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glover PM, Cavin I, Qian W, Bowtell R, Gowland PA (2007) Magnetic-field-induced vertigo: a theoretical and experimental investigation. Bioelectromagnetics 28:349–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Nierop LE, Slottje P, van Zandvoort MJ, de Vocht F, Kromhout H (2012) Effects of magnetic stray fields from a 7 tesla MRI scanner on neurocognition: a double-blind randomised crossover study. Occup Environ Med 69:759–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Vocht F, van Drooge H, Engels H, Kromhout H (2006) Exposure, health complaints and cognitive performance among employees of an MRI scanners manufacturing department. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    More SR, Lim TC, Li M, Holland CK, Boyce SE, Lee JH (2006) Acoustic noise characteristics of a 4 Telsa MRI scanner. J Magn Reson Imaging 23(3):388–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2008) Medical electrical equipment-Part 2-33: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. IEC 60601-2-33Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hennel F, Girard F, Loenneker T (1999) “Silent” MRI with soft gradient pulses. Magn Reson Med 42:6–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Theysohn JM, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Moenninghoff C, Ladd ME, Ladd SC (2008) Subjective acceptance of 7 Tesla MRI for human imaging. Magn Reson Mater Phys 21:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colloca L, Miller FG (2011) The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med 73:598–603PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barsky AJ, Saintfort R, Rogers MP, Borus JF (2002) Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA 287(5):622–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Cosottini
    • 1
  • D. Frosini
    • 2
  • L. Biagi
    • 3
  • I. Pesaresi
    • 4
  • M. Costagli
    • 5
  • G. Tiberi
    • 5
  • M. Symms
    • 6
  • M. Tosetti
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Unit of NeurologySanta Chiara HospitalPisaItaly
  3. 3.IRCCS Stella MarisPisaItaly
  4. 4.Unit of NeuroradiologySanta Chiara HospitalPisaItaly
  5. 5.IMAGO7 Research FoundationPisaItaly
  6. 6.General Electric ASL Scientist (EMEA)PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations