Literature DB >> 26155983

Fetal magnetic resonance imaging: exposure times and functional outcomes at preschool age.

Marine Bouyssi-Kobar1,2, Adré J du Plessis3, Richard L Robertson4, Catherine Limperopoulos5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been routinely used as a noninvasive diagnostic tool for more than a decade; however, there is a paucity of follow-up studies examining the effects of prenatal exposure to 1.5-T MRI on developmental outcome.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the safety of 1.5-T fetal MRI by evaluating functional outcomes of preschool children who were exposed in utero.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the context of a prospective observational study, healthy pregnant women underwent a 1.5-T MRI study using single-shot fast spin echo (SSFSE) sequences during the second or third trimester of pregnancy. The study was approved by the institutional review board at our institution, and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. MRI scanning times were recorded, and prenatal/postnatal clinical data were collected prospectively. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS), a widely used, norm-referenced and psychometrically sound functional assessment.
RESULTS: We studied 72 healthy pregnant women, who underwent fetal MRI at a mean gestational age of 30.5 ± 3.1 weeks. The cohort of fetuses was composed of 43% females, and 18 fetuses were scanned during the second trimester. All fetuses were born at term with appropriate birth weights (3.54 ± 0.5 kg) for gestational age. Mean age at follow-up testing was 24.5 ± 6.7 months. All children had age-appropriate scores in the communication, daily living, socialization and motor skills subdomains of the VABS (z-scores, P > 0.05). Furthermore, all children passed their newborn otoacoustic emission test and had normal hearing at preschool age. MRI study duration and exposure time to radio frequency waves and SSFSE sequences were not associated with adverse functional outcomes or hearing impairment.
CONCLUSION: Prenatal exposure to 1.5-T MRI during the second or third trimester of pregnancy in a cohort of healthy fetuses is not associated with disturbances in functional outcomes or hearing impairment at preschool age.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Development; Exposure; Fetus; Magnetic resonance imaging; Outcome; Safety

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26155983     DOI: 10.1007/s00247-015-3408-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Radiol        ISSN: 0301-0449


  45 in total

1.  Effect of fetal magnetic resonance imaging on fetal heart rate patterns.

Authors:  S H Vadeyar; R J Moore; B K Strachan; P A Gowland; S A Shakespeare; D K James; I R Johnson; P N Baker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Investigation of acoustic noise on 15 MRI scanners from 0.2 T to 3 T.

Authors:  D L Price; J P De Wilde; A M Papadaki; J S Curran; R I Kitney
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Quality initiatives: guidelines for use of medical imaging during pregnancy and lactation.

Authors:  Emilie Tremblay; Eric Thérasse; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Isabelle Trop
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging and safety aspects.

Authors:  Ozlem Coskun
Journal:  Toxicol Ind Health       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 2.273

5.  SAR and temperature: simulations and comparison to regulatory limits for MRI.

Authors:  Zhangwei Wang; James C Lin; Weihua Mao; Wanzhan Liu; Michael B Smith; Christopher M Collins
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Numerical study of RF exposure and the resulting temperature rise in the foetus during a magnetic resonance procedure.

Authors:  J W Hand; Y Li; J V Hajnal
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Brain volume and metabolism in fetuses with congenital heart disease: evaluation with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy.

Authors:  Catherine Limperopoulos; Wayne Tworetzky; Doff B McElhinney; Jane W Newburger; David W Brown; Richard L Robertson; Nicolas Guizard; Ellen McGrath; Judith Geva; David Annese; Carolyn Dunbar-Masterson; Bethany Trainor; Peter C Laussen; Adré J du Plessis
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 8.  MR safety issues particular to women.

Authors:  Pierluigi Ciet; Diana E Litmanovich
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.266

9.  Brief report: adaptive behavior and cognitive skills for toddlers on the autism spectrum.

Authors:  Corey E Ray-Subramanian; Nan Huai; Susan Ellis Weismer
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2011-05

Review 10.  ICNIRP statement related to the use of security and similar devices utilizing electromagnetic fields.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.316

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Findings and differential diagnosis of fetal intracranial haemorrhage and fetal ischaemic brain injury: what is the role of fetal MRI?

Authors:  Bryn Putbrese; Anne Kennedy
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Fetal Echoplanar Imaging: Promises and Challenges.

Authors:  Onur Afacan; Judy A Estroff; Edward Yang; Carol E Barnewolt; Susan A Connolly; Richard B Parad; Robert V Mulkern; Simon K Warfield; Ali Gholipour
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-10

3.  Body mass index as an indicator of the likelihood of ultrasound visualization of the appendix in pregnant women with suspicion of appendicitis.

Authors:  Camila Lopes Vendrami; Xinchun Xu; Robert J McCarthy; Joon Soo Shin; Lori A Goodhartz; Jeanne M Horowitz; Donald Kim; Frank H Miller
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-06-08

4.  Evaluation of fetal exposure to external loud noise using a sheep model: quantification of in utero acoustic transmission across the human audio range.

Authors:  Pierre Gélat; Anna L David; Seyyed Reza Haqhenas; Julian Henriques; Aude Thibaut de Maisieres; Tony White; Eric Jauniaux
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 10.693

Review 5.  Radiological staging in pregnant patients with cancer.

Authors:  Ramona Woitek; Daniela Prayer; Azadeh Hojreh; Thomas Helbich
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2016-02-08

6.  ICNIRP Statement on Diagnostic Devices Using Non-ionizing Radiation: Existing Regulations and Potential Health Risks.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 7.  Imaging modalities in pregnant cancer patients.

Authors:  Vincent Vandecaveye; Frédéric Amant; Frédéric Lecouvet; Kristel Van Calsteren; Raphaëla Carmen Dresen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.437

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.