From the Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (A.B., A.C., W.K.); Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, 399 Bathurst St, WW 4-437, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 2S8 (A.B., G.J.B.E., R.M.G., J.G., B.L., V.P., S.P., M.R., A.C., D.G., C.T.C., R.M., D.S., M.H., S.K.K., A.F., W.K., A.M.L.); Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY (T.R., M.D., J.P.); Edmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease, Morton and Gloria Shulman Movement Disorders Clinic, Toronto Western Hospital, UHN, Division of Neurology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (I.H., V.P., S.P., R.M., D.S., A.F.); GE Global Research Center, Niskayuna, NY (E.F.); Krembil Brain Institute, Toronto, Canada (A.F.); and Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY (J.P.).
Radiology. 2019 Oct;293(1):174-183. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190546. Epub 2019 Aug 6.
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 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 ( < .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, 2019See also the editorial by Martin in this issue.
背景 随着越来越多的患者接受脑深部电刺激(DBS)治疗,放射科医生遇到这些神经调节设备的频率也越来越高。然而,目前的 MRI 安全指南限制了这些患者进行 MRI 检查。
目的 描述一组使用 DBS 系统的患者进行 1.5 T 和 3 T MRI(T1 加权成像和梯度回波[GRE]-回波平面成像[EPI])的经验和安全性,并对来自功能 MRI 的 GRE-EPI 图像上的硬件相关伪影进行特征描述。
材料与方法 本前瞻性研究纳入 2017 年 6 月至 2018 年 10 月期间接受 DBS 治疗的患者,在接受 1.5 T 或 3 T MRI(T1 加权成像和 GRE-EPI)检查。记录短期和长期不良事件。作者量化了 GRE-EPI 图像(功能 MRI)中来自 DBS 硬件的伪影,这些伪影位于颅线圈线和电极接触处。然后将分段伪影转换到标准空间,以确定受信号丢失影响的大脑区域。采用两样本 t 检验评估 1.5 T 和 3 T MRI 之间的伪影大小差异。
结果 共评估了 102 例患者(平均年龄±标准差,60 岁±11 岁;65 例男性)。未观察到 MRI 相关的短期和长期不良事件或急性变化。DBS 伪影最明显的部位是电极接触处,以及电极延伸线冗余部分位于皮下的额顶皮质区域。电极接触伪影的平均直径为 9.3 mm±1.6,1.9%±0.8 的脑实质被线圈伪影遮挡。3 T 时的线圈伪影大于 1.5 T,分别遮挡颅内体积的 2.1%±0.7 和 1.4%±0.7(<.001)。额顶叶表浅皮质和毗邻电极接触处的深部结构最常被遮挡。
结论 经局部安全性预先测试,接受脑深部电刺激治疗的患者可安全进行 1.5 T 和 3 T MRI 检查。DBS 硬件相关伪影仅影响大脑的一小部分。
©RSNA,2019 参见本期 Martin 医生的相关述评。