Synopsis
Two
of the main safety problems of MRI is discussed. First one is the safety
concerns due to the gradient induced peripheral nerve stimulation. Current
commercial MRI scanners have gradients which are capable of inducing electric
field ın the body in a level that may cause sensation but fortunately this
level is far from the possibility of causing harm. The second one is related to
the safety of the patients who wear implantable medical devices. The
radiofrequency pulses of MRI may induce currents on its leads. It is feared
that this current may reach to a level that it can cause burns.Target Audience
The
scientists and engineers who would like to understand the safety problems
related with the magnetic resonance imaging.
Introduction
MRI
is known to be a safe imaging method but all possible safety problems needs to
be considered in order to ensure its safe use. Here two of these safety issues,
1) the gradient induced peripheral nerve stimulation and 2) the implant related
safety problems, will be discussed.
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation
The Faraday’s law of induction states that
the change in magnetic field generates electric field. It is, therefore, no
surprise to observe electric field in the human body due to rapidly changing
gradient field [1,
2]. This
field is usually very low and has no harmful effect to the body. Commercial MRI
scanners are equipped with the gradient coils and amplifiers that can generate
electric field in a level that may cause peripheral nerve stimulations (PNS) [3]. Although this may cause an unpleasant sensation in some instances,
it is not harmful. The level of magnetic field should be significantly higher
than the gradient field generated by the commercial scanners in order to induce
pain. Even larger fields are necessary in order to pace the heart [2]. Harm may occur at that level since random pacing may cause
ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest but again, the commercial scanners does
not have capability to generate this level of field. Let’s have closer look at
this safety problem.
In addition to physiological electric
field, an external electric field pulse may stimulate nerves as long as the
strength and duration of the pulse is high enough [4]. Gradient magnetic fields are typically designed as combination of
various trapezoidal waveforms. During the ramp-up and ramp-down periods, an
electric pulse is generated in the body. Therefore, the duration and amplitude
of the ramp are the main elements in relation to the PNS [3]. The strength and duration limitations are determined by two
parameters called the rheobase and the chronaxie time, respectively. If the
strength of the electric field (which is determined by the slope of the gradient
ramp) is lower than the rheobase, independent of the duration of the pulse,
stimulation does not occur. In general, no pacing can be observed if the
gradient ramp amplitude is divided by the rheobase is less than sum of the
chronaxie time and the duration of the ramp.
In finding the value of the rheobase (therefore
limits of the gradient waveforms), the design of the gradient coil is
important. Fortunately, most of the gradient coil designs are similar in design
and based on the requirement of largest volume coverage with acceptable level
of magnetic field linearity. If one assumes the human body as a cylindrical
uniform object (obviously, this assumption has problems, i.e. the human body is
heterogeneous and irregular shaped) and assume an ideal gradient field, the
maximum electric field inside the body is observed at the surface of the body
and occurs around the position where the coil ends. It can be shown that the
magnitude of the electric field at its maximum location is equal to the rate of
change in the gradient field times the radial and longitudinal positions of
this location. This result is in line with what we observe in human experiments
[5, 6]. When, strong gradient field causes sensation
not at the landmark position but about 20-30cm away from it. For example, if
the landmark is at heart, twitching sensation around nose of the patient may be
observed [5]. Since body is in not homogenous and its shape
is irregular, it is not possible to accurately predict with a simple analytical
formulation. Although it is possible to conduct some simulation studies to
figure out the electric field distribution in the body, further complication
comes from the fact that humans have varying sizes and shapes. Since, this
effect is not harmful, a number of people are tested for this effect and
observed some level of variation between the stimulation thresholds but a
threshold is developed for keeping most of the patients away from the
sensation.
Implant Related Safety Problems
Most of the MRI safety studies are carried
out assuming that patients does not carry any device or implant in their body
during MRI scanning. On the hand, growing number of patients have some sort of
device or implant in their body. In this part, the effect of the implants on
MRI safety will be discussed.
There are three types of magnetic fields in
MRI, i.e. static magnetic field, gradient magnetic field and the RF magnetic
field. Each of these may interact with implants in the body. The effect of the
static magnetic field to the patient with implants is rather trivial but need
some discussion. Static field may pull, or cause torque on an implant if it
contains some ferromagnetic materials in it [7]. Second, if the implant contains electronic circuits that may be
affected from high static field (inductors with ferrous core or reed relay) the
implant may malfunction in the MRI scanner. High magnetic field may cause
permanent damage to some electronic circuit elements. Newer implants are
designed by considering this problem and they are designed to have no ferromagnetic
materials in it.
There are some implant related safety
issues related with the gradient magnetic field as well [8]. First, the gradient field may induce eddy current on an implant
that contain an electronic circuit and it may affect its operation during MRI
scanning and possibly cause permanent damage to the circuit. Second, the
metallic implants may concentrate the electric field to certain regions in the
body and therefore the gradient field may cause nerve stimulation although it
would not normally cause that in the absence of implant [9]. This
issue may be very critical for the cardiac pacemakers. Since the electric field
concentration may occur at the tip of the implant. This effect can be
eliminated by designing the implant with high electrode to case impedance.
For the patients with medical implants, the
RF safety issue is the most important one since it is rather difficult
understand completely and proposed solutions to this problem is complex [10]. This is especially important for active implantable medical decides
such as cardiac pacemakers, deep brain stimulators. There are well-documented
reports on brain damage due to the excessive heating in the brain during MRI
scanning of a patient wearing a deep brain stimulator [11,
12]
including a very severe one [13]. It is now known that the induced current on the implant lead has a
characteristic similar to a transmission line and it has a damped wave pattern [14]. When its effective length become close to half of wavelength the
current on the wire becomes maximum. Maximum heating occurs on the position
where the spatial change in the current is maximum. This is typically at the
electrodes of the leads [15]. In case of the deep brain stimulators, this correspond to a point
deep inside the brain.
There are methods to alleviate this
problem. There are some studies on the development of implants that safe to use
in MRI scanners [16-18]. In
addition, there are studies that modifies that MRI scanner transmission system
such that no implant heating occurs [19-23].
Conclusion
Understanding of the safety problems are
critical for continuation of the safe usage of magnetic resonance imaging in
patients. In this text, the gradient induced peripheral nerve stimulation is
discussed as well as the safety issues related with the patients with medical
implants. As long as the safety recommendations are strictly followed, MRI will
continue to be safe medical imaging method.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Reilly, J.P., Peripheral nerve stimulation by induced
electric currents: exposure to time-varying magnetic fields. Med Biol Eng
Comput, 1989. 27(2): p. 101-10.
2. Reilly, J.P., Magnetic field excitation of peripheral nerves and the heart: a
comparison of thresholds. Med Biol Eng Comput, 1991. 29(6): p. 571-9.
3. Schaefer, D.J., J.D. Bourland, and
J.A. Nyenhuis, Review of patient safety
in time-varying gradient fields. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2000. 12(1): p. 20-9.
4. Heckmann, J.R., Excitability curve: a new technique for assessing human peripheral
nerve excitability in vivo. Neurology, 1972. 22(3): p. 224-30.
5. Vogt, F.M., et al., Increased time rate of change of gradient
fields: Effect on peripheral nerve stimulation at clinical MR imaging.
Radiology, 2004. 233(2): p. 548-554.
6. Bourland, J.D., J.A. Nyenhuis, and
D.L. Schaefer, Physiologic effects of
intense MR imaging gradient fields. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America,
1999. 9(2): p. 363-377.
7. Shellock, F.G., Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: Implants and devices.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2002. 16(5): p. 485-496.
8. Reilly, J.P. and A.M. Diamant, Theoretical evaluation of peripheral nerve
stimulation during MRI with an implanted spinal fusion stimulator. Magnetic
Resonance Imaging, 1997. 15(10): p.
1145-1156.
9. Turk, E.A., et al., A Simple Analytical Expression for the
Gradient Induced Potential on Active Implants During MRI. Ieee Transactions
on Biomedical Engineering, 2012. 59(10):
p. 2845-2851.
10. Atalar, E., Radiofrequency safety for interventional MRI procedures. Academic
Radiology, 2005. 12(9): p.
1149-1157.
11. Rezai, A.R., et al., Neurostimulation system used for deep brain
stimulation (DBS): MR safety issues and implications of failing to follow
safety recommendations. Investigative Radiology, 2004. 39(5): p. 300-303.
12. Spiegel, J., et al., Transient dystonia following magnetic
resonance imaging in a patient with deep brain stimulation electrodes for the
treatment of Parkinson disease - Case report. Journal of Neurosurgery,
2003. 99(4): p. 772-774.
13. Henderson, J.M., et al., Permanent neurological deficit related to
magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with implanted deep brain stimulation
electrodes for Parkinson's disease: case report. Neurosurgery, 2005. 57(5): p. E1063; discussion E1063.
14. Acikel, V. and E. Atalar, Modeling of radio-frequency induced currents
on lead wires during MR imaging using a modified transmission line method.
Medical Physics, 2011. 38(12): p.
6623-6632.
15. Acikel, V., A. Uslubas, and E. Atalar,
Modeling of electrodes and implantable
pulse generator cases for the analysis of implant tip heating under MR imaging.
Medical Physics, 2015. 42(7): p.
3922-3931.
16. Bottomley, P.A., et al., Designing passive MRI-safe implantable
conducting leads with electrodes. Medical Physics, 2010. 37(7): p. 3828-3843.
17. Sutton, R., et al., Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of
patients with a new Medtronic EnRhythm MRI SureScan pacing system: clinical
study design. Trials, 2008. 9.
18. Forleo, G.B., et al., The Medtronic MRI Surescan Pacing System:
Initial Clinical Experience and Implant Results of the Tor Vergata University
Hospital. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2009. 20: p. S21-S21.
19. Eryaman, Y., et al., Reduction of the radiofrequency heating of
metallic devices using a dual-drive birdcage coil. Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine, 2013. 69(3): p. 845-852.
20. Eryaman, Y., B. Akin, and E. Atalar, Reduction of Implant RF Heating Through
Modification of Transmit Coil Electric Field. Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine, 2011. 65(5): p. 1305-1313.
21. Overall, W.R., et al., Ensuring Safety of Implanted Devices Under
MRI Using Reversed RF Polarization. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2010. 64(3): p. 823-833.
22. Eryaman, Y., S. Hersek, and E. Atalar,
Comments on "Ensuring Safety of
Implanted Devices Under MRI Using Reversed Polarization". Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2011. 66(6):
p. 1515-1516.
23. Overall, W.R., et al., Response to Comments on "Ensuring
Safety of Implanted Devices Under MRI Using Reversed RF Polarization".
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2011. 66(6):
p. 1517-1517.