J S Peedicail1,2, T Poulin1, J N Scott2,3, C B Josephson1,2,4, L A Bureau3, W Hader1,2, Y Starreveld1,2, P Federico5,6,7,8. 1. Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 2. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 5. Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. pfederic@ucalgary.ca. 6. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. pfederic@ucalgary.ca. 7. Department of Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. pfederic@ucalgary.ca. 8. Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. pfederic@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intracranial electroencephalography (EEG) can be a critical part of presurgical evaluation for drug resistant epilepsy. With the increasing use of intracranial EEG, the safety of these electrodes in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment remains a concern, particularly at higher field strengths. However, no studies have reported the MRI safety experience of intracranial electrodes at 3 T. We report an MRI safety review of patients with intracranial electrodes at 1.5 and 3 T. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-five consecutive admissions for intracranial EEG monitoring were reviewed. A total of 184 MRI scans were performed on 135 patients over 140 admissions. These included 118 structural MRI studies at 1.5 T and 66 functional MRI studies at 3 T. The magnetic resonance (MR) protocols avoided the use of high specific energy absorption rate sequences that could result in electrode heating. The intracranial implantations included 114 depth, 15 subdural, and 11 combined subdural and depth electrodes. Medical records were reviewed for patient-reported complications and radiologic complications related to these studies. Pre-implantation, post-implantation, and post-explantation imaging studies were reviewed for potential complications. RESULTS: No adverse events or complications were seen during or after MRI scanning at 1.5 or 3 T apart from those attributed to electrode implantation. There was also no clinical or imaging evidence of worsening of pre-existing implantation-related complications after MR imaging. CONCLUSION: No clinical or radiographic complications are seen when performing MRI scans at 1.5 or 3 T on patients with implanted intracranial EEG electrodes while avoiding high specific energy absorption rate sequences.
PURPOSE: Intracranial electroencephalography (EEG) can be a critical part of presurgical evaluation for drug resistant epilepsy. With the increasing use of intracranial EEG, the safety of these electrodes in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment remains a concern, particularly at higher field strengths. However, no studies have reported the MRI safety experience of intracranial electrodes at 3 T. We report an MRI safety review of patients with intracranial electrodes at 1.5 and 3 T. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-five consecutive admissions for intracranial EEG monitoring were reviewed. A total of 184 MRI scans were performed on 135 patients over 140 admissions. These included 118 structural MRI studies at 1.5 T and 66 functional MRI studies at 3 T. The magnetic resonance (MR) protocols avoided the use of high specific energy absorption rate sequences that could result in electrode heating. The intracranial implantations included 114 depth, 15 subdural, and 11 combined subdural and depth electrodes. Medical records were reviewed for patient-reported complications and radiologic complications related to these studies. Pre-implantation, post-implantation, and post-explantation imaging studies were reviewed for potential complications. RESULTS: No adverse events or complications were seen during or after MRI scanning at 1.5 or 3 T apart from those attributed to electrode implantation. There was also no clinical or imaging evidence of worsening of pre-existing implantation-related complications after MR imaging. CONCLUSION: No clinical or radiographic complications are seen when performing MRI scans at 1.5 or 3 T on patients with implanted intracranial EEG electrodes while avoiding high specific energy absorption rate sequences.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical safety; Intracranial electrodes; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: L C Meiners; C J Bakker; P C van Rijen; C W van Veelen; A C van Huffelen; A van Dieren; G H Jansen; W P Mali Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825