Literature DB >> 31385756

Functional MRI Safety and Artifacts during Deep Brain Stimulation: Experience in 102 Patients.

Alexandre Boutet1, Tanweer Rashid1, Ileana Hancu1, Gavin J B Elias1, Robert M Gramer1, Jürgen Germann1, Marisa Dimarzio1, Bryan Li1, Vijayashankar Paramanandam1, Sreeram Prasad1, Manish Ranjan1, Ailish Coblentz1, Dave Gwun1, Clement T Chow1, Ricardo Maciel1, Derrick Soh1, Eric Fiveland1, Mojgan Hodaie1, Suneil K Kalia1, Alfonso Fasano1, Walter Kucharczyk1, Julie Pilitsis1, Andres M Lozano1.   

Abstract

BackgroundWith growing numbers of patients receiving deep brain stimulation (DBS), radiologists are encountering these neuromodulation devices at an increasing rate. Current MRI safety guidelines, however, limit MRI access in these patients.PurposeTo describe an MRI (1.5 T and 3 T) experience and safety profile in a large cohort of participants with active DBS systems and characterize the hardware-related artifacts on images from functional MRI.Materials and MethodsIn this prospective study, study participants receiving active DBS underwent 1.5- or 3-T MRI (T1-weighted imaging and gradient-recalled echo [GRE]-echo-planar imaging [EPI]) between June 2017 and October 2018. Short- and long-term adverse events were tracked. The authors quantified DBS hardware-related artifacts on images from GRE-EPI (functional MRI) at the cranial coil wire and electrode contacts. Segmented artifacts were then transformed into standard space to define the brain areas affected by signal loss. Two-sample t tests were used to assess the difference in artifact size between 1.5- and 3-T MRI.ResultsA total of 102 participants (mean age ± standard deviation, 60 years ± 11; 65 men) were evaluated. No MRI-related short- and long-term adverse events or acute changes were observed. DBS artifacts were most prominent near the electrode contacts and over the frontoparietal cortical area where the redundancy of the extension wire is placed subcutaneously. The mean electrode contact artifact diameter was 9.3 mm ± 1.6, and 1.9% ± 0.8 of the brain was obscured by the coil artifact. The coil artifacts were larger at 3 T than at 1.5 T, obscuring 2.1% ± 0.7 and 1.4% ± 0.7 of intracranial volume, respectively (P < .001). The superficial frontoparietal cortex and deep structures neighboring the electrode contacts were most commonly obscured.ConclusionWith a priori local safety testing, patients receiving deep brain stimulation may safely undergo 1.5- and 3-T MRI. Deep brain stimulation hardware-related artifacts only affect a small proportion of the brain.© RSNA, 2019Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Martin in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31385756     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  13 in total

Review 1.  Improving Safety of MRI in Patients with Deep Brain Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Alexandre Boutet; Clement T Chow; Keshav Narang; Gavin J B Elias; Clemens Neudorfer; Jürgen Germann; Manish Ranjan; Aaron Loh; Alastair J Martin; Walter Kucharczyk; Christopher J Steele; Ileana Hancu; Ali R Rezai; Andres M Lozano
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Modulates 2 Distinct Neurocircuits.

Authors:  Lunhao Shen; Changqing Jiang; Catherine S Hubbard; Jianxun Ren; Changgeng He; Danhong Wang; Louisa Dahmani; Yi Guo; Yiming Liu; Shujun Xu; Fangang Meng; Jianguo Zhang; Hesheng Liu; Luming Li
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 10.422

3.  Structural connectivity predicts clinical outcomes of deep brain stimulation for Tourette syndrome.

Authors:  Kara A Johnson; Gordon Duffley; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Jill L Ostrem; Marie-Laure Welter; Juan Carlos Baldermann; Jens Kuhn; Daniel Huys; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Thomas Foltynie; Ludvic Zrinzo; Marwan Hariz; Albert F G Leentjens; Alon Y Mogilner; Michael H Pourfar; Leonardo Almeida; Aysegul Gunduz; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun; Christopher R Butson
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 13.501

4.  Patient's body composition can significantly affect RF power deposition in the tissue around DBS implants: ramifications for lead management strategies and MRI field-shaping techniques.

Authors:  Bhumi Bhusal; Boris Keil; Joshua Rosenow; Ehsan Kazemivalipour; Laleh Golestanirad
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Predicting optimal deep brain stimulation parameters for Parkinson's disease using functional MRI and machine learning.

Authors:  Alexandre Boutet; Radhika Madhavan; Gavin J B Elias; Suresh E Joel; Robert Gramer; Manish Ranjan; Vijayashankar Paramanandam; David Xu; Jurgen Germann; Aaron Loh; Suneil K Kalia; Mojgan Hodaie; Bryan Li; Sreeram Prasad; Ailish Coblentz; Renato P Munhoz; Jeffrey Ashe; Walter Kucharczyk; Alfonso Fasano; Andres M Lozano
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Vertical open-bore MRI scanners generate significantly less radiofrequency heating around implanted leads: A study of deep brain stimulation implants in 1.2T OASIS scanners versus 1.5T horizontal systems.

Authors:  Ehsan Kazemivalipour; Bhumi Bhusal; Jasmine Vu; Stella Lin; Bach Thanh Nguyen; John Kirsch; Elizabeth Nowac; Julie Pilitsis; Joshua Rosenow; Ergin Atalar; Laleh Golestanirad
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 3.737

Review 7.  Opportunities of connectomic neuromodulation.

Authors:  Andreas Horn; Michael D Fox
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Common fronto-temporal effective connectivity in humans and monkeys.

Authors:  Francesca Rocchi; Hiroyuki Oya; Fabien Balezeau; Alexander J Billig; Zsuzsanna Kocsis; Rick L Jenison; Kirill V Nourski; Christopher K Kovach; Mitchell Steinschneider; Yukiko Kikuchi; Ariane E Rhone; Brian J Dlouhy; Hiroto Kawasaki; Ralph Adolphs; Jeremy D W Greenlee; Timothy D Griffiths; Matthew A Howard; Christopher I Petkov
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  Habenular Involvement in Response to Subcallosal Cingulate Deep Brain Stimulation for Depression.

Authors:  Gavin J B Elias; Jürgen Germann; Aaron Loh; Alexandre Boutet; Aditya Pancholi; Michelle E Beyn; Venkat Bhat; D Blake Woodside; Peter Giacobbe; Sidney H Kennedy; Andres M Lozano
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 4.157

Review 10.  Technology of deep brain stimulation: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Joachim K Krauss; Nir Lipsman; Tipu Aziz; Alexandre Boutet; Peter Brown; Jin Woo Chang; Benjamin Davidson; Warren M Grill; Marwan I Hariz; Andreas Horn; Michael Schulder; Antonios Mammis; Peter A Tass; Jens Volkmann; Andres M Lozano
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 42.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.