BACKGROUND: The recent use of high and ultra-high magnetic field (MF) systems (3.0 T and above) have raised concerns about biologic effects and safety. Sensory symptoms (magnetophosphenes, dizziness/vertigo, headaches, metallic taste, pain changes, and cognitive effects) have been reported. We monitored 1023 consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI after recent introduction of a 3 T MR unit in our community. METHODS/ DESIGN: Observational study utilizing a pretest and posttest symptom rating scale (0-10) questionnaire presented to subjects undergoing MRI at three different facilities with five MRI machines, specifically a 3 T (Philips), three units with 1.5 T (GE, GE, Philips), and one 0.6 T (Fonar) unit to record symptoms before and after study. RESULTS: 147 subjects (14%) experienced either new (N= 69; 6.7%) or changes (N= 78; 8%) in symptoms. New onset symptoms occurred predominantly with 3 T and female preponderance (75%) [P= .002]. Vertigo/dizziness (N= 28, 5.6%) [P= .001], headache (N= 8), spine pain (N= 11) occurred more frequently on 3 T, whereas magnetophosphenes (N= 8) and metallic mouth symptoms (N= 4) occurred principally in 1.5 T. Seventy-eight subjects (8%) experienced pain symptoms upward arrow downward arrow with 75% occurring with 1.5 T. Females were 60%. Forty-three percent of individuals had brain MRIs. Symptoms of vertigo/dizziness, headaches, and magnetophosphenes were more commonly seen in individuals undergoing brain MRIs but other body sites were also represented. CONCLUSIONS: Although no harmful effects were reported in 1023 cases, an unexpected high rate of 14% of individuals experienced sensory stimulation in both 3 T and 1.5 T units. Females appear to be more magnetically sensitive.
BACKGROUND: The recent use of high and ultra-high magnetic field (MF) systems (3.0 T and above) have raised concerns about biologic effects and safety. Sensory symptoms (magnetophosphenes, dizziness/vertigo, headaches, metallic taste, pain changes, and cognitive effects) have been reported. We monitored 1023 consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI after recent introduction of a 3 T MR unit in our community. METHODS/ DESIGN: Observational study utilizing a pretest and posttest symptom rating scale (0-10) questionnaire presented to subjects undergoing MRI at three different facilities with five MRI machines, specifically a 3 T (Philips), three units with 1.5 T (GE, GE, Philips), and one 0.6 T (Fonar) unit to record symptoms before and after study. RESULTS: 147 subjects (14%) experienced either new (N= 69; 6.7%) or changes (N= 78; 8%) in symptoms. New onset symptoms occurred predominantly with 3 T and female preponderance (75%) [P= .002]. Vertigo/dizziness (N= 28, 5.6%) [P= .001], headache (N= 8), spine pain (N= 11) occurred more frequently on 3 T, whereas magnetophosphenes (N= 8) and metallic mouth symptoms (N= 4) occurred principally in 1.5 T. Seventy-eight subjects (8%) experienced pain symptoms upward arrow downward arrow with 75% occurring with 1.5 T. Females were 60%. Forty-three percent of individuals had brain MRIs. Symptoms of vertigo/dizziness, headaches, and magnetophosphenes were more commonly seen in individuals undergoing brain MRIs but other body sites were also represented. CONCLUSIONS: Although no harmful effects were reported in 1023 cases, an unexpected high rate of 14% of individuals experienced sensory stimulation in both 3 T and 1.5 T units. Females appear to be more magnetically sensitive.
Authors: D R Buis; J C J Bot; F Barkhof; D L Knol; F J Lagerwaard; B J Slotman; W P Vandertop; R van den Berg Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K Setsompop; R Kimmlingen; E Eberlein; T Witzel; J Cohen-Adad; J A McNab; B Keil; M D Tisdall; P Hoecht; P Dietz; S F Cauley; V Tountcheva; V Matschl; V H Lenz; K Heberlein; A Potthast; H Thein; J Van Horn; A Toga; F Schmitt; D Lehne; B R Rosen; V Wedeen; L L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kristel Schaap; Yvette Christopher-de Vries; Catherine K Mason; Frank de Vocht; Lützen Portengen; Hans Kromhout Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: I-Jun Chou; Christopher R Tench; Penny Gowland; Tim Jaspan; Rob A Dineen; Nikos Evangelou; Rasha Abdel-Fahim; William P Whitehouse; Cris S Constantinescu Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Richard Kasch; Birger Mensel; Florian Schmidt; Wolf Drescher; Ralf Pfuhl; Sebastian Ruetten; Harry R Merk; Ralph Kayser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Richard Kasch; Birger Mensel; Florian Schmidt; Sebastian Ruetten; Thomas Barz; Susanne Froehlich; Rebecca Seipel; Harry R Merk; Ralph Kayser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 3.240