MRI & Other Implantable Electronic Devices: Best Practices
Kagayaki Kuroda1
1School of Into Sci & Tech, Tokai University, Japan

Synopsis

In order to achieve best practice in MR examination of patients with IED's, essences for considering safety will be described, in particular from the view point of RF-heating. Those include physical interactions of devices with electromagnetic fields of MR scanners, tips to deal with SAR and B1+rms in the light of reliability and diagnosability, and recent progresses in database and guidance.

Target audience

  • Clinicians and technologists examining patients with IMD's including IED's
  • Researchers working on MR safety
  • Engineers of medical device manufactures
  • Company employees working for regulatory affairs
  • Officers in regulatory body

Objectives

To understand the followings;
  • Physical interactions of IED's with electromagnetic fields of MR
  • Gap between console-displayed SAR and actual-measured SAR
  • Variability of the SAR and B1+rms among different scanners
  • Mechanisms why those gap and variety are allowed
  • Effect of SAR and B1+rms limits on image quality and radiologists' impression
  • Pogresses in MR-safety database and guidance

Introduction

Magnetic resonance (MR) safety of implantable medical devices are becoming general knowledge not only for health professions but also for patients and general citizens. In addition to the cardiac devices, some other IED products such as deep brain stimulators (DBS's), cochlear implants (CI's), spinal cord stimulators (SCS's), and vagus nerve stimulators (VNS's) have also been approved as MR-conditional based on the manufactures' intensive efforts for testing. However, the physical mechanisms and hidden information about MR conditionality are still difficult to be fully understood in clinical practice. In particular, the tips to secure patients' safety and yet maintain diagnostic effectiveness under the electromagnetically induced heating seem to be one of the most important challenges for clinicians. In this lecture, the essence of these challenges will be imparted, starting with a few tips from the view point of electromagnetics.

Physical interactions of IED's with electromagnetic fields of MR

Tissue heating by RF magnetic field is inductive heating in that the electric motive force or electric field induced by the alternation of B1-field generates Joule heat. The specific absorption rate (SAR) is an expression of Joule's law per a unit weight of tissue. When a conductive rod or lead is placed in the tissue, the electric current made by the electric motive force will flow into the conductor making the current density at the tip parts of the conductor much denser than that in the surrounding tissue. If the conductor is insulated remaining its bare tips, the current density will easily reach to dozens of times denser(1) making SAR, which is in proportion to a square of current, hundreds of times higher. When an insulated lead is in the electric field, the amount of the tangential component of the electric field determines the degree of heating. When a conductor has blunt and sharp parts, the electric field at the sharp part will be stronger than the blunt with a reverse ratio of the curvature radiuses of the two parts(2). Accurate understanding of these basic phenomena may help clinicians for protecting patients from heating.

SAR and B1+rms: How variable and reliable are the values on consoles?

In order to see the variability and reliability of the console-displayed SAR, calorimetric studies were performed in two different 1.5-T and in one 3-T clinical scanners(3). The imaging conditions in this study were set to have a console-reported whole body averaged SAR (Console SAR) as 2.0 W/kg, 1.0 W/kg, or a console-displayed B1+rms (Console B1+rms) as 3.2 μT. Fluoroptic temperature measurements were performed along with the ASTM method(4, 5) for 30 minutes during fast spin echo sequence of TR, 3275-4424 ms; TE, 63 ms; and ETL 7 or 14. The console SAR and console B1+rms were plotted against measured SAR, which was obtained with the net weight of the phantom (25kg). In the two 1.5-T scanners, the console SAR was smaller than the measured SAR, meaning that the console SAR indicated underestimation. The inter-scanner variation of the measured SAR was of a factor of 2. In the 3-T scanner, the console SAR was close to the measured SAR. When applying the NEMA (2) strategy, in that the "equivalent body mass" (EBM) of 50-75kg(6) or 70-90 kg(7) was applied, all of the console SAR values became same or higher than the measured SAR. There was also a variation of a factor of 1.2 between the console B1+rms values at the two 1.5T.

SAR and B1+rms: How do they impact on image quality and diagnosability?

Image quality and diagnosability were assessed for 30 healthy volunteers (15 male and 15 females) at both 1.5T and 3T with the aforementioned console SAR and B1+rms settings. The brain, heart, liver, lumber, and pelvic (uterine for female and prostate for male) regions were examined by routinely used sequence parameters. The scan durations and spatial coverage were maintained consistent for the different settings. The trends of image quality (SNR and CNR) against the different SAR and B1+rms settings varied among the body regions and sequences. Diagnosability scored by three radiologists was similar for the different console settings, although individual difference among the radiologists was recognized. At 3T, there was recognizable image quality degradation at lower SAR setting.

Recent progresses in database and guidance

Another aspect of MR safety of IED's are the construction and maintenance of the database and guidelines. In 2019, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in Japan issued an official announcement that promotes the MR safety labeling in any type of medical device that have probability to enter to MR environments. As a response to this announcement, MR-safety data search system(8) for both IED's and non-electric IMD's as well as data sources of IED's have been opened to public with no charge by industries and academic societies.

Summary

The key points of the physical background and clinical impact of the MR conditionality were described mainly for MR-induced heat. Improvements in the database and guidance by industries, regulatory bodies and the academic society are rapidly ongoing.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in parts by Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) Japan, and Japanese Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (JSMRM).

References

1. Smith C, Nyenhuis J, Kildishev A. Health Effects of Induced Electric Fields: Implications for Metallic Implants. In: Shellock F, Bradley W, editors. Magnetic Resonance Procedures Health Effects and Safety. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000. p. 393-413.

2. Feynman R, Leighton R, Sands M. The Feynman lectures on physics. 1966;Vol. 2: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu.

3. Kuroda K, Sunohara S, Yatsushiro S, Saito T, Kajiwara N, Horie T, et al. Imagiing Conditions and Image Quality fforr Patients with MR-conditional Implantable Mediical Devices: Norrmal Volunter Study. Proc 27th Ann Meeting ISMRM 2018:p. 643.

4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating Near Passive Implants During Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2011; F2182-11a.

5. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating Near Passive Implants During Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2019; F2182-19e19.

6. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Characterization of the Specific Absorption Rate for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems. Standards Publication; MS 8-2008. 2008.

7. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Characterization of the Specific Absorption Rate for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems. Standards Publication; MS 8-2016. 2016.

8. MR Safety Information Search System for Implantable Medical Devices [Available from: https://www.medie.jp/en/solutions/mri.

Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 28 (2020)