OBJECTIVE: One prerequisite for transferring ultra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (>3T) into clinical diagnostic workup is a low rate of side effects. To our knowledge, publications of subjective acceptance and willingness to undergo examinations at >3T are rare. We present first results from our research site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exposure to 7 T whole-body MRI of head, extremities, or breast was assessed in 102 subjects. They judged sources of discomfort (examination duration, room temperature) and physiological sensations (vertigo, light flashes) on a 10-point scale, differentiating between examination phases: table stationary or moving. For comparison, the same questionnaire was completed by 43 of these subjects after undergoing a 1.5 T examination. Vertigo was the most pronounced sensation at 7 T with 5% rating it as very unpleasant (none at 1.5 T). This should be compared with the fact that the lengthy exam duration was regarded as even more uncomfortable. Compared to 1.5 T, average study duration at 7 T was roughly doubled, and 7 T elicited a wider range of complaints. CONCLUSION: Although the number of side effects is increased at 7 T compared to 1.5 T, 7 T was well tolerated by the majority of subjects. Further data collection is necessary for better understanding of these effects.
OBJECTIVE: One prerequisite for transferring ultra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (>3T) into clinical diagnostic workup is a low rate of side effects. To our knowledge, publications of subjective acceptance and willingness to undergo examinations at >3T are rare. We present first results from our research site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exposure to 7 T whole-body MRI of head, extremities, or breast was assessed in 102 subjects. They judged sources of discomfort (examination duration, room temperature) and physiological sensations (vertigo, light flashes) on a 10-point scale, differentiating between examination phases: table stationary or moving. For comparison, the same questionnaire was completed by 43 of these subjects after undergoing a 1.5 T examination. Vertigo was the most pronounced sensation at 7 T with 5% rating it as very unpleasant (none at 1.5 T). This should be compared with the fact that the lengthy exam duration was regarded as even more uncomfortable. Compared to 1.5 T, average study duration at 7 T was roughly doubled, and 7 T elicited a wider range of complaints. CONCLUSION: Although the number of side effects is increased at 7 T compared to 1.5 T, 7 T was well tolerated by the majority of subjects. Further data collection is necessary for better understanding of these effects.
Authors: Florian M Vogt; Mark E Ladd; Peter Hunold; Serban Mateiescu; Franz X Hebrank; Al Zhang; Jörg F Debatin; Susanne C Göhde Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P M Robitaille; A M Abduljalil; A Kangarlu; X Zhang; Y Yu; R Burgess; S Bair; P Noa; L Yang; H Zhu; B Palmer; Z Jiang; D M Chakeres; D Spigos Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Salvatore Torrisi; Katherine O'Connell; Andrew Davis; Richard Reynolds; Nicholas Balderston; Julie L Fudge; Christian Grillon; Monique Ernst Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Maria R Stefanescu; Moritz Dohnalek; Stefan Maderwald; Markus Thürling; Martina Minnerop; Andreas Beck; Marc Schlamann; Joern Diedrichsen; Mark E Ladd; Dagmar Timmann Journal: Brain Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: K V Annink; N E van der Aa; J Dudink; T Alderliesten; F Groenendaal; M Lequin; F E Jansen; K S Rhebergen; P Luijten; J Hendrikse; H J M Hoogduin; E R Huijing; E Versteeg; F Visser; A J E Raaijmakers; E C Wiegers; D W J Klomp; J P Wijnen; M J N L Benders Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Cosottini; D Frosini; L Biagi; I Pesaresi; M Costagli; G Tiberi; M Symms; M Tosetti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas F Budinger; Mark D Bird; Lucio Frydman; Joanna R Long; Thomas H Mareci; William D Rooney; Bruce Rosen; John F Schenck; Victor D Schepkin; A Dean Sherry; Daniel K Sodickson; Charles S Springer; Keith R Thulborn; Kamil Uğurbil; Lawrence L Wald Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Meredith Metcalf; Duan Xu; Darin T Okuda; Lucas Carvajal; Radhika Srinivasan; Douglas A C Kelley; Pratik Mukherjee; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron; Daniel Pelletier Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 2.486