Majid Maybody1, Bedros Taslakian2, Jeremy C Durack3, Elena A Kaye4, Joseph P Erinjeri5, Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli6, Stephen B Solomon7. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: maybodym@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020 Beirut, Lebanon. Electronic address: bt05@aub.edu.lb. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: durackj@mskcc.org. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: kayee@mskcc.org. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: erinjerj@mskcc.org. 6. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: srimaths@mskcc.org. 7. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: solomons@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized and surgical patients. To reduce risk, perioperative VTE prophylaxis is recommended for cancer patients undergoing surgical or interventional procedures. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in interventional oncology when alternative imaging modalities do not adequately delineate malignancies. Extended periods of immobilization during MRI-guided interventions necessitate an MR compatible sequential compression device (SCD) for intra-procedural mechanical VTE prophylaxis. Such devices are not commercially available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standard SCD routinely used at our institution for VTE prophylaxis during interventional procedures was used. To satisfy MR safety requirements, the SCD controller was placed in the MR control room and connected to the compression sleeves in the magnet room through the wave guide using tubing extensions. The controller pressure sensor was used to monitor adequate pressure delivery and detect ineffective low or abnormal high pressure delivery. VTE prophylaxis was provided using the above mentioned device for 38 patients undergoing MR-guided ablations. RESULTS: There was no evidence of device failure due to loss of pressure in the extension tubing assembly. No interference with the anesthesia or interventional procedures was documented. CONCLUSION: Although the controller of a standard SCD is labeled as "MR-unsafe", the SCD can be used in interventional MR settings by placing the device outside the MR scanner room. Using serial tubing extensions did not cause device failure. The described method can be used to provide perioperative mechanical VTE prophylaxis for high risk patients undergoing MR-guided procedures.
PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized and surgical patients. To reduce risk, perioperative VTE prophylaxis is recommended for cancer patients undergoing surgical or interventional procedures. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in interventional oncology when alternative imaging modalities do not adequately delineate malignancies. Extended periods of immobilization during MRI-guided interventions necessitate an MR compatible sequential compression device (SCD) for intra-procedural mechanical VTE prophylaxis. Such devices are not commercially available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standard SCD routinely used at our institution for VTE prophylaxis during interventional procedures was used. To satisfy MR safety requirements, the SCD controller was placed in the MR control room and connected to the compression sleeves in the magnet room through the wave guide using tubing extensions. The controller pressure sensor was used to monitor adequate pressure delivery and detect ineffective low or abnormal high pressure delivery. VTE prophylaxis was provided using the above mentioned device for 38 patients undergoing MR-guided ablations. RESULTS: There was no evidence of device failure due to loss of pressure in the extension tubing assembly. No interference with the anesthesia or interventional procedures was documented. CONCLUSION: Although the controller of a standard SCD is labeled as "MR-unsafe", the SCD can be used in interventional MR settings by placing the device outside the MR scanner room. Using serial tubing extensions did not cause device failure. The described method can be used to provide perioperative mechanical VTE prophylaxis for high risk patients undergoing MR-guided procedures.
Authors: Michael K Gould; David A Garcia; Sherry M Wren; Paul J Karanicolas; Juan I Arcelus; John A Heit; Charles M Samama Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: J A Heit; L J Melton; C M Lohse; T M Petterson; M D Silverstein; D N Mohr; W M O'Fallon Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Kemal Tuncali; Paul R Morrison; Carl S Winalski; John A Carrino; Sridhar Shankar; John E Ready; Eric vanSonnenberg; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gregory Piazza; Amanda F Rao; Thanh Nha Nguyen; Andrew C Seger; Benjamin Hohlfelder; John Fanikos; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: Clin Appl Thromb Hemost Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 2.389
Authors: M H Maurer; N Schreiter; M de Bucourt; C Grieser; D M Renz; T Hartwig; B Hamm; F Streitparth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Alok A Khorana; Nicole M Kuderer; Agnes Y Lee; Juan Ignacio Arcelus; Edward P Balaban; Jeffrey M Clarke; Christopher R Flowers; Charles W Francis; Leigh E Gates; Ajay K Kakkar; Nigel S Key; Mark N Levine; Howard A Liebman; Margaret A Tempero; Sandra L Wong; Ann Alexis Prestrud; Anna Falanga Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 44.544