Marc Dewey1, Tania Schink, Charles F Dewey. 1. Department of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. marc.dewey@charite.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyse the frequency of patients with absolute and relative contraindications to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging who were actually referred to an outpatient imaging centre for an MR examination MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether a total of 51,547 consecutive patients were included between November 1997 and December 2005. Reasons preventing MR imaging were classified into the following categories: absolute and relative contraindications. RESULTS: The referral frequency of patients with absolute contraindications to MR imaging was 0.41% (211 of 51,547 patients; 95% CI, 0.36-0.47%). The absolute contraindications were shrapnels located in biologically sensitive areas (121 patients, 0.23%; 95% CI, 0.20-0.28%), cardiac pacemakers (42 patients, 0.08%; 95% CI, 0.06-0.11%), and other unsafe implants (48 patients, 0.09%; 95% CI, 0.07-0.12%). Also patients with a relative contraindication to MR imaging were referred such as women with a first-trimester pregnancy (13 patients, 0.03%; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04%). CONCLUSION: Surprisingly, a considerable number of patients (0.41%) with cardiac pacemakers, other metallic implants (not approved for MR), or shrapnels are referred to MR facilities despite the well-known recommendations not to examine such patients. Thus, absolute contraindications to MR imaging are commonly found among patients referred for MR examinations and every effort needs to be made to screen patients prior to MR imaging for such contraindications to avoid detrimental results. Also, institutions placing implants (approved and unapproved for MR) should become legally responsible for providing the required information to the patients and their physicians.
PURPOSE: To analyse the frequency of patients with absolute and relative contraindications to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging who were actually referred to an outpatient imaging centre for an MR examination MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether a total of 51,547 consecutive patients were included between November 1997 and December 2005. Reasons preventing MR imaging were classified into the following categories: absolute and relative contraindications. RESULTS: The referral frequency of patients with absolute contraindications to MR imaging was 0.41% (211 of 51,547 patients; 95% CI, 0.36-0.47%). The absolute contraindications were shrapnels located in biologically sensitive areas (121 patients, 0.23%; 95% CI, 0.20-0.28%), cardiac pacemakers (42 patients, 0.08%; 95% CI, 0.06-0.11%), and other unsafe implants (48 patients, 0.09%; 95% CI, 0.07-0.12%). Also patients with a relative contraindication to MR imaging were referred such as women with a first-trimester pregnancy (13 patients, 0.03%; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04%). CONCLUSION: Surprisingly, a considerable number of patients (0.41%) with cardiac pacemakers, other metallic implants (not approved for MR), or shrapnels are referred to MR facilities despite the well-known recommendations not to examine such patients. Thus, absolute contraindications to MR imaging are commonly found among patients referred for MR examinations and every effort needs to be made to screen patients prior to MR imaging for such contraindications to avoid detrimental results. Also, institutions placing implants (approved and unapproved for MR) should become legally responsible for providing the required information to the patients and their physicians.
Authors: O Steinstraeter; Inga K Teismann; A Wollbrink; S Suntrup; K Stoeckigt; R Dziewas; C Pantev Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Judith Enders; Elke Zimmermann; Matthias Rief; Peter Martus; Randolf Klingebiel; Patrick Asbach; Christian Klessen; Gerd Diederichs; Thomas Bengner; Ulf Teichgräber; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Judith Enders; Elke Zimmermann; Matthias Rief; Peter Martus; Randolf Klingebiel; Patrick Asbach; Christian Klessen; Gerd Diederichs; Moritz Wagner; Ulf Teichgräber; Thomas Bengner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francesco Paparo; Giovanni Cenderello; Matteo Revelli; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Mariangela Rutigliani; Daniele Zefiro; Luca Cevasco; Maria Amico; Roberto Bandelloni; Giovanni Cassola; Gian Luca Forni; Gian Andrea Rollandi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sebastian Eggert; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Markus Klarhöfer; Alexander Peters; Stephan A Bolliger; Michael J Thali; Suzanne Anderson; Johannes M Froehlich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Judith Enders; Matthias Rief; Elke Zimmermann; Patrick Asbach; Gerd Diederichs; Christoph Wetz; Eberhard Siebert; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Richard Sutton; Emanuel Kanal; Bruce L Wilkoff; David Bello; Roger Luechinger; Inge Jenniskens; Michael Hull; Torsten Sommer Journal: Trials Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ima Paydar; Brian S Kim; Robyn A Cyr; Harriss Rashid; Amna Anjum; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 6.244