Sarra Aissani1, Elmar Laistler2,3, Jacques Felblinger4,5. 1. IADI, U947, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, CHRU de Nancy Brabois, Bâtiment Recherche, Rue du Morvan, 54511, Nancy, Frankreich. 2. Zentrum für Medizinische Physik und Biomedizinische Technik, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich. 3. Exzellenzzentrum Hochfeld MR, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich. 4. IADI, U947, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, CHRU de Nancy Brabois, Bâtiment Recherche, Rue du Morvan, 54511, Nancy, Frankreich. j.felblinger@chru-nancy.fr. 5. CIC 1433 Innovation Technologique, INSERM, CHRU Nancy Brabois, Nancy, Frankreich. j.felblinger@chru-nancy.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs) require magnetic resonance (MR) examinations. The manufacturers are continuing to improve the MR compatibility of their AIMDs. To this end, a variety of measurement methods and numerical simulations are used to evaluate the risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). OBJECTIVE: In this article, test methods used to investigate interactions between AIMDs with radio frequency fields and time-varying magnetic gradient fields are reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review of known test methods for radio frequency and gradient field exposure of AIMDs with leads, in particular for neurostimulators, cochlear implants, and implanted infusion pumps, is presented. The state of the art and promising methods are discussed. RESULTS: ISO/TS 10974 describes the design of high frequency and gradient injection setups to test conductive materials. A large number of sensor designs have been published to measure the induced voltages and currents through radio frequency and gradient fields and for monitoring AIMDs during MR examinations in in vitro tests. CONCLUSION: The test methods should be planned to be as conservative as possible to cover the worst case scenario. However, in vitro measurements and computer simulation are far from being able to cover all possible configurations in their complexity and uniqueness. For safer MR examinations, current research recommends in vivo testing prior to MR, parallel radiofrequency transmission techniques, and new sequences with reduced energy input in the presence of AIMDs.
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs) require magnetic resonance (MR) examinations. The manufacturers are continuing to improve the MR compatibility of their AIMDs. To this end, a variety of measurement methods and numerical simulations are used to evaluate the risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). OBJECTIVE: In this article, test methods used to investigate interactions between AIMDs with radio frequency fields and time-varying magnetic gradient fields are reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review of known test methods for radio frequency and gradient field exposure of AIMDs with leads, in particular for neurostimulators, cochlear implants, and implanted infusion pumps, is presented. The state of the art and promising methods are discussed. RESULTS: ISO/TS 10974 describes the design of high frequency and gradient injection setups to test conductive materials. A large number of sensor designs have been published to measure the induced voltages and currents through radio frequency and gradient fields and for monitoring AIMDs during MR examinations in in vitro tests. CONCLUSION: The test methods should be planned to be as conservative as possible to cover the worst case scenario. However, in vitro measurements and computer simulation are far from being able to cover all possible configurations in their complexity and uniqueness. For safer MR examinations, current research recommends in vivo testing prior to MR, parallel radiofrequency transmission techniques, and new sequences with reduced energy input in the presence of AIMDs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Compatibility; Heating; Magnetic resonance imaging; Malfunction; Rectification
Authors: Esra A Turk; Emre Kopanoglu; Sevin Guney; K Emre Bugdayci; Y Ziya Ider; Vakur B Erturk; Ergin Atalar Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Eugenia Cabot; Tom Lloyd; Andreas Christ; Wolfgang Kainz; Mark Douglas; Gregg Stenzel; Steve Wedan; Niels Kuster Journal: Bioelectromagnetics Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.010
Authors: Laleh Golestanirad; John Kirsch; Giorgio Bonmassar; Sean Downs; Behzad Elahi; Alastair Martin; Maria-Ida Iacono; Leonardo M Angelone; Boris Keil; Lawrence L Wald; Julie Pilitsis Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 6.556