On the Subjective Acceptance During Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 7.0 Tesla

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2015 Jan 27

PMID 25621491

Citations 7

Authors

Sabrina Klix

Antje Els

Katharina Paul

Andreas Graessl

Celal Oezerdem

Oliver Weinberger

Lukas Winter

Christof Thalhammer

Till Huelnhagen

Jan Rieger

Heidrun Mehling

Jeanette Schulz-Menger

Thoralf Niendorf

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the subjective acceptance during UHF-CMR in a cohort of healthy volunteers who underwent a cardiac MR examination at 7.0T.

Methods: Within a period of two-and-a-half years (January 2012 to June 2014) a total of 165 healthy volunteers (41 female, 124 male) without any known history of cardiac disease underwent UHF-CMR. For the assessment of the subjective acceptance a questionnaire was used to examine the participants experience prior, during and after the UHF-CMR examination. For this purpose, subjects were asked to respond to the questionnaire in an exit interview held immediately after the completion of the UHF-CMR examination under supervision of a study nurse to ensure accurate understanding of the questions. All questions were answered with "yes" or "no" including space for additional comments.

Results: Transient muscular contraction was documented in 12.7% of the questionnaires. Muscular contraction was reported to occur only during periods of scanning with the magnetic field gradients being rapidly switched. Dizziness during the study was reported by 12.7% of the subjects. Taste of metal was reported by 10.1% of the study population. Light flashes were reported by 3.6% of the entire cohort. 13% of the subjects reported side effects/observations which were not explicitly listed in the questionnaire but covered by the question about other side effects. No severe side effects as vomiting or syncope after scanning occurred. No increase in heart rate was observed during the UHF-CMR exam versus the baseline clinical examination.

Conclusions: This study adds to the literature by detailing the subjective acceptance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging examinations at a magnetic field strength of 7.0T. Cardiac MR examinations at 7.0T are well tolerated by healthy subjects. Broader observational and multi-center studies including patient cohorts with cardiac diseases are required to gain further insights into the subjective acceptance of UHF-CMR examinations.

Citing Articles

Patient Comfort in Modern Computed Tomography: What Really Counts.

Niehoff J, Heuser A, Michael A, Lennartz S, Borggrefe J, Kroeger J Tomography. 2022; 8(3):1401-1412.

PMID: 35645399 PMC: 9149918. DOI: 10.3390/tomography8030113.

On the way to routine cardiac MRI at 7 Tesla - a pilot study on consecutive 84 examinations.

Reiter T, Lohr D, Hock M, Ankenbrand M, Stefanescu M, Kosmala A PLoS One. 2021; 16(7):e0252797.

PMID: 34297720 PMC: 8301632. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252797.

Cardiac functional magnetic resonance imaging at 7T: Image quality optimization and ultra-high field capabilities.

Ibrahim E, Arpinar V, Tugan Muftuler L, Stojanovska J, Nencka A, Koch K World J Radiol. 2020; 12(10):231-246.

PMID: 33240463 PMC: 7653183. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v12.i10.231.

Controlled Release of Therapeutics from Thermoresponsive Nanogels: A Thermal Magnetic Resonance Feasibility Study.

Ji Y, Winter L, Navarro L, Ku M, Periquito J, Pham M Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12(6).

PMID: 32471299 PMC: 7352924. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061380.

High Spatial Resolution Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance at 7.0 Tesla in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy - First Experiences: Lesson Learned from 7.0 Tesla.

Prothmann M, von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Topper A, Dieringer M, Shahid E, Graessl A PLoS One. 2016; 11(2):e0148066.

PMID: 26863618 PMC: 4749213. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148066.

References

Rodgers C, Clarke W, Snyder C, Thomas Vaughan J, Neubauer S, Robson M . Human cardiac 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2013; 72(2):304-15. PMC: 4106879. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24922. View

Kramer C, Barkhausen J, Flamm S, Kim R, Nagel E . Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocols 2013 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013; 15:91. PMC: 3851953. DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-91. View

van Elderen S, van Elderen S, Versluis M, Webb A, Westenberg J, Doornbos J . Initial results on in vivo human coronary MR angiography at 7 T. Magn Reson Med. 2009; 62(6):1379-84. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22168. View

Meloni A, Hezel F, Positano V, Keilberg P, Pepe A, Lombardi M . Detailing magnetic field strength dependence and segmental artifact distribution of myocardial effective transverse relaxation rate at 1.5, 3.0, and 7.0 T. Magn Reson Med. 2013; 71(6):2224-30. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24856. View

van Elderen S, Versluis M, Westenberg J, Agarwal H, Smith N, Stuber M . Right coronary MR angiography at 7 T: a direct quantitative and qualitative comparison with 3 T in young healthy volunteers. Radiology. 2010; 257(1):254-9. PMC: 2941721. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.100615. View

Grassl A, Winter L, Thalhammer C, Renz W, Kellman P, Martin C . Design, evaluation and application of an eight channel transmit/receive coil array for cardiac MRI at 7.0 T. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 82(5):752-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.08.002. View

Niendorf T, Graessl A, Thalhammer C, Dieringer M, Kraus O, Santoro D . Progress and promises of human cardiac magnetic resonance at ultrahigh fields: a physics perspective. J Magn Reson. 2013; 229:208-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2012.11.015. View

Theysohn J, Kraff O, Eilers K, Andrade D, Gerwig M, Timmann D . Vestibular effects of a 7 Tesla MRI examination compared to 1.5 T and 0 T in healthy volunteers. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3):e92104. PMC: 3962400. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092104. View

Heilmaier C, Theysohn J, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Ladd M, Ladd S . A large-scale study on subjective perception of discomfort during 7 and 1.5 T MRI examinations. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011; 32(8):610-9. DOI: 10.1002/bem.20680. View

10.

Schaap K, Christopher-de Vries Y, Mason C, De Vocht F, Portengen L, Kromhout H . Occupational exposure of healthcare and research staff to static magnetic stray fields from 1.5-7 Tesla MRI scanners is associated with reporting of transient symptoms. Occup Environ Med. 2014; 71(6):423-9. PMC: 4033112. DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101890. View

11.

Theysohn J, Maderwald S, Kraff O, Moenninghoff C, Ladd M, Ladd S . Subjective acceptance of 7 Tesla MRI for human imaging. MAGMA. 2007; 21(1-2):63-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-007-0095-x. View

12.

Schlamann M, Voigt M, Maderwald S, Bitz A, Kraff O, Ladd S . Exposure to high-field MRI does not affect cognitive function. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31(5):1061-6. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22065. View

13.

Resetar A, Hoffmann S, Graessl A, Winter L, Waiczies H, Ladd M . Retrospectively-gated CINE (23)Na imaging of the heart at 7.0 Tesla using density-adapted 3D projection reconstruction. Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 33(9):1091-1097. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2015.06.012. View

14.

Winter L, Kellman P, Renz W, Grassl A, Hezel F, Thalhammer C . Comparison of three multichannel transmit/receive radiofrequency coil configurations for anatomic and functional cardiac MRI at 7.0T: implications for clinical imaging. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(10):2211-20. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2487-1. View

15.

Mian O, Li Y, Antunes A, Glover P, Day B . On the vertigo due to static magnetic fields. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e78748. PMC: 3813712. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078748. View

16.

Rodgers C, Piechnik S, Delabarre L, Van de Moortele P, Snyder C, Neubauer S . Inversion recovery at 7 T in the human myocardium: measurement of T(1), inversion efficiency and B(1) (+). Magn Reson Med. 2012; 70(4):1038-46. PMC: 4134266. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24548. View

17.

Crozier S, Wang H, Trakic A, Liu F . Exposure of workers to pulsed gradients in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 26(5):1236-54. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21162. View

18.

Heinrich A, Szostek A, Meyer P, Nees F, Rauschenberg J, Grobner J . Cognition and sensation in very high static magnetic fields: a randomized case-crossover study with different field strengths. Radiology. 2012; 266(1):236-45. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112172. View

19.

van Nierop L, Slottje P, van Zandvoort M, De Vocht F, Kromhout H . Effects of magnetic stray fields from a 7 tesla MRI scanner on neurocognition: a double-blind randomised crossover study. Occup Environ Med. 2012; 69(10):759-66. DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2011-100468. View

20.

Versluis M, Teeuwisse W, Kan H, van Buchem M, Webb A, van Osch M . Subject tolerance of 7 T MRI examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 38(3):722-5. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23904. View