Abstract
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has a superior soft-tissue contrast compared to other radiological imaging modalities and its physiological and functional applications have led to a significant increase in MRI scans worldwide. A comprehensive MRI safety training to protect patients and other healthcare workers from potential bio-effects and risks of the magnetic fields in an MRI suite is therefore essential. The knowledge of the purpose of safety zones in an MRI suite as well as MRI appropriateness criteria is important for all healthcare professionals who will work in the MRI environment or refer patients for MRI scans.
The purpose of this article is to give an overview of current magnetic resonance safety guidelines and discuss the safety risks of magnetic fields in an MRI suite including forces and torque of ferromagnetic objects, tissue heating, peripheral nerve stimulation and hearing damages. MRI safety and compatibility of implanted devices, MRI scans during pregnancy and the potential risks of MRI contrast agents will also be discussed and a comprehensive MRI safety training to avoid fatal accidents in an MRI suite will be presented.
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Safety, Magnetic Fields, Implants, Pregnancy, Contrast Agents
Introduction
The increasing clinical demand for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) with its superior soft-tissue contrast compared to other radiological imaging modalities and potential physiological and functional applications has contributed to the installation of almost 30,000 MRI scanners worldwide. Therefore, more and more healthcare professionals need to be trained in MRI safety to protect patients and other healthcare workers from the potential risks of MRI [1,2]. It is also important that radiologists, referring physicians and MR technologists are able to evaluate MRI safety and compatibility of medical devices and implants because they are often the first health care professionals who will talk to a patient about an MRI exam, potential risks, and MRI safety [3].
Radiologists are well trained about MRI appropriateness criteria but they require support from referring physicians to estimate the risks and benefits of MR imaging procedures [4]. Especially referring physicians who know details of a patient’s medical history can improve the MRI safety screening process when they are aware of the risks of an MRI scan by pre-screening their patients before an MRI exam [5]. This is particularly important in high-risk patients and in patients with new implants that have not yet been tested for MRI compatibility [6,7].
An expert panel has developed the American College of Radiology (ACR) Guidance Document for Safe MR practices [8]. The following sections will review potential bio-effects and risks of the magnetic fields that interact with patients and health care professionals in an MRI suite [9].
Magnetic Fields in an MRI suite
There are three major magnetic fields in an MRI suite that that have potential safety risks [10–14]:
The static magnetic field B0 of clinical MRI scanners that ranges from 0.2T to 3T [15–17]. B0 is orders of magnitudes larger than the magnetic field of the earth and can torque, attract and accelerate ferromagnetic objects in direction of the opening of the bore of an MRI scanner. B0 can also interfere with implanted devices such as pumps and pace makers [18–26,1,27,28,2,29,30,15,31,12,16,32–47,7,48–62,11,63–73].
The radiofrequency (RF) field B1 that is in the order of μT [74,30] and is produced by RF-coils. It can potentially cause tissue heating, especially when implants are present [19,75–89,16,90–100,4,101–103,10,104–116,69,117].
The magnetic field gradients with amplitudes in the order of 100 mT/m and with slew rates up to 200 mT/m/ms [63,118]. The fast switching gradient fields are applied for spatial encoding of the MRI signal and can cause peripheral nerve stimulation and implant heating. They are also responsible for the noise in the MRI scanner room, which can reach levels of 100 dB or more and potentially lead to hearing damages [74,119–121,118,122–126,30,31,127,128,16,90,129,37,130–133,57,58,134,135,69].
MRI Zones
In the ACR guidance document on MR safe practices from 2013 four different zones are suggested around the MRI scanner [136,137]. The access to these zones is restricted in MRI facilities and hospitals and the boundary of each zone in this four-zone safety system is defined by its purpose and distance from the MRI scanner [30]. Some zones may extend into other areas or floors of the facility due to the three dimensional extend of the magnetic field [138].
Zone I includes all areas freely accessible to the general public where the magnet field poses no hazards, such as the entrance to the MR facility.
Zone II is located between Zone I and the more restrictive Zone III. In Zone II patients are under general supervision of MR personnel. Zone II often includes the reception area, dressing rooms and MRI screening rooms.
Zone III is access-restricted by physical barriers such as doors with coded access. Inside Zone III, only approved MR personnel and patients that have undergone MRI screening are allowed. The MR control room is in Zone III.
Zone IV is the room where the magnet is located. Access to Zone IV should only be possible by passing through Zone III. Zone IV is designed so that the walls of magnet room contain the five 0.5 mT line (or 5 Gauss) line of the fringe field of the magnet.
The 5 Gauss line of an MRI suite defines a border to an area in which the magnetic field could affect implanted devices such as pacemakers [7]. Special warning signs about the strong magnetic field and its associated hazards need to be set up in the MRI facility. An MR safety program should be established to train employees about the dangers of the magnetic fields in the MRI suite [139] and to warn about potential interferences of the magnetic fringe field with implanted devices [140].
Attractive forces and torque on ferromagnetic objects by the static magnetic field B0
The static magnetic field B0 of an MRI machine attracts ferromagnetic objects and accelerates them toward the center of the bore of the MRI scanner. Ferromagnetic objects such as coins, hairpins, steel oxygen tanks or scissors can be accelerated or torqued by B0 [4,10] and become dangerous projectiles [51]. The MRI safety program of the facility needs to warn about the misconception that larger objects will resist attraction to the field and need to emphasize the relationship between object size, material components, and projectile risk. Insufficient MRI safety training of ancillary medical personnel has led to fatal accidents when medical and other equipment was accelerated into the bore of the magnet [50,51].
Thermal effects induced by the radiofrequency field B1
Physicians and MRI technologists need to be aware of the bio-effects of radiofrequency fields [99] because RF-fields can cause tissue heating in the human body [100,105]. The specific absorption rate (SAR) is a measure of the RF-power absorbed per mass of tissue and has the units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) [75]. The absorbed RF-energy is transformed into heat in the human body [141,110] and especially infants, children and patients with thermo-regulatory disorders might experience an increase in the body core temperature due to RF-induced heating during an MRI exam [76,141,114,142].
A proper preparation of each patient before an MRI exam is necessary to avoid burns even for patients without implants. The Guidelines to Prevent Excessive Heating and Burns Associated with Magnetic Resonance Procedures [143] recommend to
remove metallic objects contacting the patient’s skin (e.g., jewelry, drug delivery patches with metallic components),
use insulation material of 1 cm or thicker to prevent skin-to-skin contact and the formation of closed-loops from touching body parts,
allow only devices, equipment, accessories (e.g., ECG leads, electrodes), and materials that have been thoroughly tested and determined to be MRI safe [6,144,7].
Peripheral nerve stimulation and hearing damage caused by the gradient system
The time-varying fast-switching gradient magnetic fields may stimulate nerves or muscles in patients by inducing electrical fields [121]. There are multiple factors influencing the interactions of gradient fields with biological tissues and they depend on the frequency of the gradient field, the maximum and average flux densities, the presence of harmonic frequencies, the waveform characteristics of the signal, the polarity of the signal, the current distribution in the body, the electrical properties, and the sensitivity of the cell membrane [119–121,118,126,31,128,37,131,133,63,134]. The acoustic noise during an MRI exam is also caused by the gradient system [121,118]. Head phones and earplugs are essential hearing protections for patients during and anybody present during an MRI examination [37].
MRI screening procedures
MRI screening before any MRI exam is indispensible and evaluates the magnetic and geometric properties of implants or foreign bodies, and their potential interactions with the magnetic fields in an MRI system [16,145,51,4,10,146,147]. Before anybody is allowed to enter the MRI suite, it is essential to remove all objects that could potentially interact with the magnetic fields [50,51,58,11]. It is recommended that patients will wear gowns in the MRI environment to avoid metallic fasteners, loose metallic components, or metallic threads on clothing in the MRI suite [148].
Implanted Devices
It is essential for any referring physician, radiologist or MR technologist to know where to find details about the MRI safety and compatibility of medical implants and devices [7,6,144]. Frank Shellock, Ph.D. and his team work on MRI safety and have published several books and a searchable on-line catalog that lists MRI-safe devices and MRI-safe implants with their allowed magnetic field strengths and gradient limitations (http://www.mrisafety.com/TheList_search.asp) [100,4,101–103,58,10,104,59,105,60,106,107]. When a patient with implants is scheduled for an MRI exam it is vital to understand that the injury risk increases with the proximity of the implants to vital vascular, neural or soft tissue structures [58]. Implants, medical materials, and devices from the US and Europe that were manufactured in last three decades are made from non-ferromagnetic materials and are usually labeled MR safe or MR conditional [100]. Other implants or devices have to be considered MR unsafe and are contraindicated for an MRI scan. Interactions of these objects with the magnetic fields can cause severe artifacts and heating [7]. Even non-ferromagnetic implants can cause heating due to eddy currents that propagate in metals exposed to oscillating magnetic fields [102,103]. Especially orthopedic implants such as external fixation systems can cause heating in an MRI scanner [6,144,7,145,149,4,103,10,107] and some of the new implants or devices have not been tested or labeled for MRI compatibility [150]. It is therefore essential to establish a close collaboration between the radiology team, the ordering physician, and the physician who placed the implant [13].
MRI during Pregnancy
The practice guidelines collaboratively developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) recommends no special consideration for any trimester in pregnancy [151] since there is no evidence in the current literature for deleterious effects of MR imaging at 1.5 T on the developing fetus [152–154]. The risk to benefit ratio to perform an MR scan on a pregnant patient needs to be evaluated by a level 2 MR personnel-designated attending radiologist [139,151]. The radiologist should discuss and agree with the referring physician to perform the magnetic resonance imaging exam. Patients can then undergo an MRI scan in any stage of the pregnancy and the following statements should be added to the radiology report or to the patients’ medical record [151]:
The information requested from the MRI study cannot be acquired by ultrasonography.
The data are needed to potentially affect the care of the patient or fetus during the pregnancy.
The referring physician does not feel it is prudent to wait until the patient is no longer pregnant to obtain these data.
The ACR Manual on Contrast Media recommends that each case should be reviewed carefully by members of the clinical and radiology team and gadolinium based contrast agents should be administered only when there is a potential significant benefit to the patient or fetus that outweighs the possible but unknown risk of fetal exposure to free gadolinium ions [136]. Gadolinium based contrast agents are consequently classified as pregnancy class C drugs because potential benefits may warrant the use in pregnant women despite potential risks [8,155].
MR Contrast Agents
FDA approved MRI contrast agents are gadolinium chelates with different stability, viscosity, and osmolality [156].
Radiologists and MRI technologists should be aware of adverse effects of gadolinium based contrast agents. Gadolinium chelates are in general well tolerated and acute adverse reactions are observed with a lower frequency than after the administration of iodinated contrast media [157]. The reported frequencies of all acute adverse events after an injection of 0.1 or 0.2 mmol/kg of gadolinium chelate range from 0.07% to 2.4% [156,158]. Coldness at the injection site, nausea with or without vomiting, headache, warmth or pain at the injection site, paresthesias, dizziness, and itching are potential adverse effects after the administration of gadolinium chelates [159,160,157,161–167,158,156,168–170]. Severe allergic reactions including rash hives, urticaria and bronchospasm range from 0.004% to 0.7% [160,161]. Severe, life-threatening anaphylactoid or nonallergic anaphylactic reactions are exceedingly rare with frequencies between 0.001% and 0.01% [160,162,164,168]. In an accumulated series of 687,000 doses there were only 5 severe reactions and fatal reactions to gadolinium chelate are extremely rare [156,160,157,161].
Nevertheless, it is important to know that Gadolinium chelates administered to patients with acute renal failure or severe chronic kidney disease can result in a syndrome of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) [159]. There are no reports of NSF in patients with normal kidney function, therefore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that manufacturers include a boxed warning on the product labeling of all gadolinium-based contrast agents that patients with severe kidney insufficiency who receive gadolinium-based agents are at risk for developing NSF [157,160].
Claustrophobia during MRI exams
Patients can become claustrophobic during an MRI scan and refuse to complete the exam especially when they are not well informed about the procedure [171,172]. Larger bore sizes and Open MRI systems can help to reduce claustrophobia [173,174]. Referring physicians can help to reduce claustrophobia by discussing the details of the MRI procedure with the patients before their exam [175,176].
Sedation and Anesthesia for MRI exams
Non-compliant patients such as children or claustrophobic adults may require sedation or anesthesia during an MRI exam because MRI scans often require long scan times and are sensitive to motion [177]. Patients with pain can benefit from pain management to help them to remain motionless during the MRI exam. An MRI safety program should emphasize specific risks and benefits of sedation, anesthesia, and pain management in these patients [178].
MRI Safety Training and Emergency Procedures in an MRI Suite
All personnel working in the MR environment need to be trained with a comprehensive MRI safety course [13]. For new employees who will work in the MR environment this course should be included in the employee orientation program and be repeated annually. The MRI safety training should include the presentation of technical and medical background of MRI safety. Hands-on demonstrations of missile effects of ferromagnetic objects can help to better understand and experience the dangers in an MRI suite [9,13]. Detailed screening procedures of patients with a questionnaire for ferromagnetic objects, implants, devices, body piercing, allergies to MRI contrast agents, kidney disease, pregnancy, breast feeding and also the screening of patients that have a history injuries by a metallic foreign body such as bullets, shrapnel, or other type of metallic fragments help to avoid severe accidents in an MRI suite. An important topic to discuss in an MRI safety course are severe burn wounds that were experienced by patients when limbs or other body parts of the patients were in direct contact with transmit RF coils of the MR systems or when skin-to-skin contact points were responsible for these injuries. The safety course needs to warn about high acoustic noise levels of the gradient system during an MRI scan and the potential noise reduction with earplugs and headphones to avoid potential hearing damage. Videos from quenching magnets can help to understand how powerful a sudden loss of the superconductivity of the magnet might be and emergency procedures during a quench should be discussed. It is important that medical personal entering the MRI scanner room to evaluate the patient, administer medications or interventions need to be trained in emergency procedures in an MRI suite [140]. Healthcare professionals need to know which objects can be brought into the different MRI zones in order to prevent fatal injuries and medical equipment failure and how to remove a patient from the MRI magnet room to resuscitate or treat the patient in emergency cases [145].
Acknowledgments
Steffen Sammet, M.D., Ph.D., DABR, DABMRS, FAMP is funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R25NS080949) National Cancer Institute Education and Career Development program R25 Cancer Nanotechnology in Imaging and Radiotherapy (R25CA132822), the Cancer Research Foundation, the University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center and Philips Healthcare.
References
- 1.Chakeres DW, de Vocht F. Static magnetic field effects on human subjects related to magnetic resonance imaging systems. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology. 2005;87(2–3):255–265. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Feychting M. Health effects of static magnetic fields--a review of the epidemiological evidence. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology. 2005;87(2–3):241–246. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hipp E, Sammet S, Straus C. MR Safety Standards for Medical Students Nationwide. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of ISMRM; Melbourne, Australia. 2012. p (abstract 2731) [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance procedures : health effects and safety. CRC Press; Boca Raton: 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Karpowicz J, Gryz K. Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to a magnetic field from magnetic resonance imaging devices. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE. 2006;12(2):155–167. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2006.11076679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.ASTM F2052-00 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Passive Implants in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. [Accessed November 8 2015]; [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sammet CL, Yang X, Wassenaar PA, Bourekas EC, Yuh BA, Shellock F, Sammet S, Knopp MV. RF-related heating assessment of extracranial neurosurgical implants at 7T. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2013;31(6):1029–1034. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.10.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Expert Panel on MRS. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Borgstede JP, Bradley WG, Jr, Froelich JW, Gimbel JR, Gosbee JW, Kuhni-Kaminski E, Larson PA, Lester JW, Jr, Nyenhuis J, Schaefer DJ, Sebek EA, Weinreb J, Wilkoff BL, Woods TO, Lucey L, Hernandez D. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2013;37(3):501–530. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sammet S. Implementation of a Comprehensive MR Safety Course for Medical Students. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of ISMRM; Salt Lake City. 2013. p (abstract 4071) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Shellock FG, Kanal E. Magnetic resonance : bioeffects, safety, and patient management. 2. Lippincott-Raven; Philadelphia: 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Simmons A, Hakansson K. Magnetic resonance safety. Methods in molecular biology. 2011;711:17–28. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61737-992-5_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hansson Mild K, Hand J, Hietanen M, Gowland P, Karpowicz J, Keevil S, Lagroye I, van Rongen E, Scarfi MR, Wilen J. Exposure classification of MRI workers in epidemiological studies. Bioelectromagnetics. 2013;34(1):81–84. doi: 10.1002/bem.21728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sammet S, Sammet CL. Implementation of a comprehensive MR safety course for medical students. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2015 doi: 10.1002/jmri.24993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tsai LL, Grant AK, Mortele KJ, Kung JW, Smith MP. A Practical Guide to MR Imaging Safety: What Radiologists Need to Know. Radiographics. 2015;35(6):1722–1737. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ghodbane S, Lahbib A, Sakly M, Abdelmelek H. Bioeffects of static magnetic fields: oxidative stress, genotoxic effects, and cancer studies. BioMed research international. 2013;2013:602987. doi: 10.1155/2013/602987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hartwig V, Giovannetti G, Vanello N, Lombardi M, Landini L, Simi S. Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: a review. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2009;6(6):1778–1798. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6061778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Glover PM, Cavin I, Qian W, Bowtell R, Gowland PA. Magnetic-field-induced vertigo: a theoretical and experimental investigation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28(5):349–361. doi: 10.1002/bem.20316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Heinrich A, Szostek A, Nees F, Meyer P, Semmler W, Flor H. Effects of static magnetic fields on cognition, vital signs, and sensory perception: a meta-analysis. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2011;34(4):758–763. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Medical Electrical Equipment. International Standard IEC 6060, 1-2-33, 2002. Nov 8, 2015. Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Atkinson IC, Renteria L, Burd H, Pliskin NH, Thulborn KR. Safety of human MRI at static fields above the FDA 8 T guideline: sodium imaging at 9.4 T does not affect vital signs or cognitive ability. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1222–1227. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Atkinson IC, Sonstegaard R, Pliskin NH, Thulborn KR. Vital signs and cognitive function are not affected by 23-sodium and 17-oxygen magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain at 9.4 T. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2010;32(1):82–87. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Besson JA, Foreman EI, Eastwood LM, Smith FW, Ashcroft GW. Cognitive evaluation following NMR imaging of the brain. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 1984;47(3):314–316. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.47.3.314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Brockway JP, Bream PR., Jr Does memory loss occur after MR imaging? Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 1992;2(6):721–728. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880020617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Brody AS, Embury SH, Mentzer WC, Winkler ML, Gooding CA. Preservation of sickle cell blood-flow patterns during MR imaging: an in vivo study. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 1988;151(1):139–141. doi: 10.2214/ajr.151.1.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Brody AS, Sorette MP, Gooding CA, Listerud J, Clark MR, Mentzer WC, Brasch RC, James TL. AUR memorial Award. Induced alignment of flowing sickle erythrocytes in a magnetic field. A preliminary report. Investigative radiology. 1985;20(6):560–566. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198509000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cavin ID, Glover PM, Bowtell RW, Gowland PA. Thresholds for perceiving metallic taste at high magnetic field. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1357–1361. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.de Vocht F, Stevens T, Glover P, Sunderland A, Gowland P, Kromhout H. Cognitive effects of head-movements in stray fields generated by a 7 Tesla whole-body MRI magnet. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28(4):247–255. doi: 10.1002/bem.20311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.de Vocht F, Stevens T, van Wendel-de-Joode B, Engels H, Kromhout H. Acute neurobehavioral effects of exposure to static magnetic fields: analyses of exposure-response relations. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2006;23(3):291–297. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Franco G, Mora E, Perduri R. Focusing ethical dilemmas of evidence-based practice in SMF-exposed MRI-workers: a qualitative analysis. International archives of occupational and environmental health. 2010;83(4):417–421. doi: 10.1007/s00420-009-0476-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Fuentes MA, Trakic A, Wilson SJ, Crozier S. Analysis and measurements of magnetic field exposures for healthcare workers in selected MR environments. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering. 2008;55(4):1355–1364. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2007.913410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Glover PM. Interaction of MRI field gradients with the human body. Physics in medicine and biology. 2009;54(21):R99–R115. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/21/R01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Heinrich A, Szostek A, Meyer P, Nees F, Rauschenberg J, Grobner J, Gilles M, Paslakis G, Deuschle M, Semmler W, Flor H. Cognition and sensation in very high static magnetic fields: a randomized case-crossover study with different field strengths. Radiology. 2013;266(1):236–245. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hong CZ, Shellock FG. Short-term exposure to a 1.5 tesla static magnetic field does not affect somato-sensory-evoked potentials in man. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1990;8(1):65–69. doi: 10.1016/0730-725x(90)90214-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hsieh CH, Lee MC, Tsai-Wu JJ, Chen MH, Lee HS, Chiang H, Herbert Wu CH, Jiang CC. Deleterious effects of MRI on chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis and cartilage/OARS, Osteoarthritis Research Society. 2008;16(3):343–351. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Innis NK, Ossenkopp KP, Prato FS, Sestini E. Behavioral effects of exposure to nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: II. Spatial memory tests. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1986;4(4):281–284. doi: 10.1016/0730-725x(86)91037-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kangarlu A, Burgess RE, Zhu H, Nakayama T, Hamlin RL, Abduljalil AM, Robitaille PM. Cognitive, cardiac, and physiological safety studies in ultra high field magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1999;17(10):1407–1416. doi: 10.1016/s0730-725x(99)00086-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Kannala S, Toivo T, Alanko T, Jokela K. Occupational exposure measurements of static and pulsed gradient magnetic fields in the vicinity of MRI scanners. Physics in medicine and biology. 2009;54(7):2243–2257. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/7/026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Karpowicz J, Gryz K, Politanski P, Zmyslony M. Exposure to static magnetic field and health hazards during the operation of magnetic resonance scanners. Medycyna pracy. 2011;62(3):309–321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Karpowicz J, Zradzinski P, Gryz K. Measures of occupational exposure to time-varying low frequency magnetic fields of non-uniform spatial distribution in the light of international guidelines and electrodynamic exposure effects in the human body. Medycyna pracy. 2012;63(3):317–328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kay HH, Herfkens RJ, Kay BK. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on Xenopus laevis embryogenesis. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1988;6(5):501–506. doi: 10.1016/0730-725x(88)90124-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Laszlo J, Gyires K. 3 T homogeneous static magnetic field of a clinical MR significantly inhibits pain in mice. Life sciences. 2009;84(1–2):12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2008.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.McRobbie DW. Occupational exposure in MRI. The British journal of radiology. 2012;85(1012):293–312. doi: 10.1259/bjr/30146162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Muller S, Hotz M. Human brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP) before and after MR examinations. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1990;16(3):476–480. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910160314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Ossenkopp KP, Innis NK, Prato FS, Sestini E. Behavioral effects of exposure to nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: I. Open-field behavior and passive avoidance learning in rats. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1986;4(4):275–280. doi: 10.1016/0730-725x(86)91036-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Patel M, Williamsom RA, Dorevitch S, Buchanan S. Pilot study investigating the effect of the static magnetic field from a 9.4-T MRI on the vestibular system. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2008;50(5):576–583. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318162f5d6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Prasad N, Wright DA, Ford JJ, Thornby JI. Safety of 4-T MR imaging: study of effects on developing frog embryos. Radiology. 1990;174(1):251–253. doi: 10.1148/radiology.174.1.2294557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Sakurai T, Terashima S, Miyakoshi J. Effects of strong static magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging on insulin-secreting cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30(1):1–8. doi: 10.1002/bem.20433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Schaap K, Christopher-De Vries Y, Slottje P, Kromhout H. Inventory of MRI applications and workers exposed to MRI-related electromagnetic fields in the Netherlands. European journal of radiology. 2013;82(12):2279–2285. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Schenck JF. Health and physiological effects of human exposure to whole-body four-tesla magnetic fields during MRI. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1992;649:285–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb49617.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Schenck JF. MR safety at high magnetic fields. Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America. 1998;6(4):715–730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Schenck JF. Safety of strong, static magnetic fields. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2000;12(1):2–19. doi: 10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<2::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Schenck JF, Dumoulin CL, Redington RW, Kressel HY, Elliott RT, McDougall IL. Human exposure to 4.0-Tesla magnetic fields in a whole-body scanner. Medical physics. 1992;19(4):1089–1098. doi: 10.1118/1.596827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Schlamann M, Voigt MA, Maderwald S, Bitz AK, Kraff O, Ladd SC, Ladd ME, Forsting M, Wilhelm H. Exposure to high-field MRI does not affect cognitive function. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2010;31(5):1061–1066. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Schlamann M, Yoon MS, Maderwald S, Pietrzyk T, Bitz AK, Gerwig M, Forsting M, Ladd SC, Ladd ME, Kastrup O. Short term effects of magnetic resonance imaging on excitability of the motor cortex at 1.5T and 7T. Academic radiology. 2010;17(3):277–281. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Schwartz JL, Crooks LE. NMR imaging produces no observable mutations or cytotoxicity in mammalian cells. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 1982;139(3):583–585. doi: 10.2214/ajr.139.3.583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Schwenzer NF, Bantleon R, Maurer B, Kehlbach R, Herberts T, Claussen CD, Rodegerdts E. In vitro evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla on clonogenic ability, proliferation, and cell cycle in human embryonic lung fibroblasts. Investigative radiology. 2007;42(4):212–217. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000255831.40115.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Schwenzer NF, Bantleon R, Maurer B, Kehlbach R, Schraml C, Claussen CD, Rodegerdts E. Do static or time-varying magnetic fields in magnetic resonance imaging (3.0 T) alter protein-gene expression?-A study on human embryonic lung fibroblasts. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1210–1215. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004;232(3):635–652. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2323030830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Shellock FG, Schaefer DJ, Crues JV. Exposure to a 1.5-T static magnetic field does not alter body and skin temperatures in man. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1989;11(3):371–375. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910110311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Shellock FG, Schaefer DJ, Gordon CJ. Effect of a 1.5 T static magnetic field on body temperature of man. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1986;3(4):644–647. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910030418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Short WO, Goodwill L, Taylor CW, Job C, Arthur ME, Cress AE. Alteration of human tumor cell adhesion by high-strength static magnetic fields. Investigative radiology. 1992;27(10):836–840. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199210000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Silva AK, Silva EL, Egito ES, Carrico AS. Safety concerns related to magnetic field exposure. Radiation and environmental biophysics. 2006;45(4):245–252. doi: 10.1007/s00411-006-0065-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Tomasi DG, Wang R. Induced magnetic field gradients and forces in the human head in MRI. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1340–1345. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Toyomaki A, Yamamoto T. Observation of changes in neural activity due to the static magnetic field of an MRI scanner. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1216–1221. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Valiron O, Peris L, Rikken G, Schweitzer A, Saoudi Y, Remy C, Job D. Cellular disorders induced by high magnetic fields. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2005;22(3):334–340. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.van Nierop LE, Slottje P, van Zandvoort MJ, de Vocht F, Kromhout H. Effects of magnetic stray fields from a 7 tesla MRI scanner on neurocognition: a double-blind randomised crossover study. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2012;69(10):759–766. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2011-100468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Vaughan T, DelaBarre L, Snyder C, Tian J, Akgun C, Shrivastava D, Liu W, Olson C, Adriany G, Strupp J, Andersen P, Gopinath A, van de Moortele PF, Garwood M, Ugurbil K. 9.4T human MRI: preliminary results. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2006;56(6):1274–1282. doi: 10.1002/mrm.21073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Vogl TJ, Paulus W, Fuchs A, Krafczyk S, Lissner J. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging on evoked potentials and nerve conduction velocities in humans. Investigative radiology. 1991;26(5):432–437. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199105000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Weintraub MI, Khoury A, Cole SP. Biologic effects of 3 Tesla (T) MR imaging comparing traditional 1.5 T and 0.6 T in 1023 consecutive outpatients. Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. 2007;17(3):241–245. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2007.00118.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Weiss J, Herrick RC, Taber KH, Contant C, Plishker GA. Bio-effects of high magnetic fields: a study using a simple animal model. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1992;10(4):689–694. doi: 10.1016/0730-725x(92)90021-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Yamaguchi-Sekino S, Nakai T, Imai S, Izawa S, Okuno T. Occupational exposure levels of static magnetic field during routine MRI examination in 3 T MR system. Bioelectromagnetics. 2013 doi: 10.1002/bem.21817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Yamaguchi-Sekino S, Sekino M, Ueno S. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields and recently updated safety guidelines for strong static magnetic fields. Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2011;10(1):1–10. doi: 10.2463/mrms.10.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Yuh WT, Fisher DJ, Shields RK, Ehrhardt JC, Shellock FG. Phantom limb pain induced in amputee by strong magnetic fields. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 1992;2(2):221–223. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880020216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Abart J, Eberhardt K, Fischer H, Huk W, Richter E, Schmitt F, Storch T, Tomandl B, Zeitler E. Peripheral nerve stimulation by time-varying magnetic fields. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 1997;21(4):532–538. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199707000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Alon L, Deniz CM, Brown R, Sodickson DK, Zhu Y. Method for in situ characterization of radiofrequency heating in parallel transmit MRI. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2013;69(5):1457–1465. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Atalar E. Radiofrequency safety for interventional MRI procedures. Academic radiology. 2005;12(9):1149–1157. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Boss A, Graf H, Berger A, Lauer UA, Wojtczyk H, Claussen CD, Schick F. Tissue warming and regulatory responses induced by radio frequency energy deposition on a whole-body 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imager. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1334–1339. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Bottomley PA. Turning up the heat on MRI. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2008;5(7):853–855. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Bottomley PA, Edelstein WA. Power deposition in whole-body NMR imaging. Medical physics. 1981;8(4):510–512. doi: 10.1118/1.595000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Budinger TF. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in vivo studies: known thresholds for health effects. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 1981;5(6):800–811. doi: 10.1097/00004728-198112000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Collins CM. Numerical field calculations considering the human subject for engineering and safety assurance in MRI. NMR in biomedicine. 2009;22(9):919–926. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.de Greef M, Ipek O, Raaijmakers AJ, Crezee J, van den Berg CA. Specific absorption rate intersubject variability in 7T parallel transmit MRI of the head. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2013;69(5):1476–1485. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Drinkwater BL, Horvath SM. Heat tolerance and aging. Medicine and science in sports. 1979;11(1):49–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.El-Sharkawy AM, Qian D, Bottomley PA, Edelstein WA. A multichannel, real-time MRI RF power monitor for independent SAR determination. Medical physics. 2012;39(5):2334–2341. doi: 10.1118/1.3700169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Gorny KR, Bernstein MA, Felmlee JP, Ward HA, McGee KP, Lanners DM, Lee KH. Calorimetric calibration of head coil SAR estimates displayed on a clinical MR scanner. Physics in medicine and biology. 2008;53(10):2565–2576. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/10/008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Gowland PA, De Wilde J. Temperature increase in the fetus due to radio frequency exposure during magnetic resonance scanning. Physics in medicine and biology. 2008;53(21):L15–18. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/21/L01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Graesslin I, Homann H, Biederer S, Bornert P, Nehrke K, Vernickel P, Mens G, Harvey P, Katscher U. A specific absorption rate prediction concept for parallel transmission MR. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2012;68(5):1664–1674. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Hand JW, Li Y, Hajnal JV. Numerical study of RF exposure and the resulting temperature rise in the foetus during a magnetic resonance procedure. Physics in medicine and biology. 2010;55(4):913–930. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/4/001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Hand JW, Li Y, Thomas EL, Rutherford MA, Hajnal JV. Prediction of specific absorption rate in mother and fetus associated with MRI examinations during pregnancy. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2006;55(4):883–893. doi: 10.1002/mrm.20824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation P. Medical magnetic resonance (MR) procedures: protection of patients. Health physics. 2004;87(2):197–216. doi: 10.1097/00004032-200408000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Israel M, Zaryabova V, Ivanova M. Electromagnetic field occupational exposure: non-thermal vs. thermal effects. Electromagnetic biology and medicine. 2013;32(2):145–154. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2013.776349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Jauchem JR. Effects of drugs on thermal responses to microwaves. General pharmacology. 1985;16(4):307–310. doi: 10.1016/0306-3623(85)90188-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Kangarlu A, Shellock FG, Chakeres DW. 8.0-Tesla human MR system: temperature changes associated with radiofrequency-induced heating of a head phantom. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2003;17(2):220–226. doi: 10.1002/jmri.10236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Kikuchi S, Saito K, Takahashi M, Ito K. Temperature elevation in the fetus from electromagnetic exposure during magnetic resonance imaging. Physics in medicine and biology. 2010;55(8):2411–2426. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/8/018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Murbach M, Neufeld E, Kainz W, Pruessmann KP, Kuster N. Whole-body and local RF absorption in human models as a function of anatomy and position within 1.5T MR body coil. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2013 doi: 10.1002/mrm.24690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Neufeld E, Gosselin MC, Murbach M, Christ A, Cabot E, Kuster N. Analysis of the local worst-case SAR exposure caused by an MRI multi-transmit body coil in anatomical models of the human body. Physics in medicine and biology. 2011;56(15):4649–4659. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/15/002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Oh S, Webb AG, Neuberger T, Park B, Collins CM. Experimental and numerical assessment of MRI-induced temperature change and SAR distributions in phantoms and in vivo. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2010;63(1):218–223. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Rowell LB. Cardiovascular aspects of human thermoregulation. Circulation research. 1983;52(4):367–379. doi: 10.1161/01.res.52.4.367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Schaefer DJ. Safety aspects of radiofrequency power deposition in magnetic resonance. Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America. 1998;6(4):775–789. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Shellock FG. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2000;12(1):30–36. doi: 10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<30::aid-jmri4>3.0.co;2-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Shellock FG, Crues JV. Temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure changes associated with clinical MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1987;163(1):259–262. doi: 10.1148/radiology.163.1.3823445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Shellock FG, Crues JV. Corneal temperature changes induced by high-field-strength MR imaging with a head coil. Radiology. 1988;167(3):809–811. doi: 10.1148/radiology.167.3.3363146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Shellock FG, Crues JV. Temperature changes caused by MR imaging of the brain with a head coil. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology. 1988;9(2):287–291. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Shellock FG, Rothman B, Sarti D. Heating of the scrotum by high-field-strength MR imaging. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 1990;154(6):1229–1232. doi: 10.2214/ajr.154.6.2110733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Shellock FG, Schaefer DJ, Crues JV. Alterations in body and skin temperatures caused by magnetic resonance imaging: is the recommended exposure for radiofrequency radiation too conservative? The British journal of radiology. 1989;62(742):904–909. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-62-742-904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Shellock FG, Schaefer DJ, Kanal E. Physiologic responses to an MR imaging procedure performed at a specific absorption rate of 6.0 W/kg. Radiology. 1994;192(3):865–868. doi: 10.1148/radiology.192.3.8058962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Shellock FG, Schatz CJ. Increased corneal temperature caused by MR imaging of the eye with a dedicated local coil. Radiology. 1992;185(3):697–699. doi: 10.1148/radiology.185.3.1438747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Shrivastava D, Hanson T, Kulesa J, DelaBarre L, Iaizzo P, Vaughan JT. Radio frequency heating at 9.4T (400.2 MHz): in vivo thermoregulatory temperature response in swine. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2009;62(4):888–895. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Shrivastava D, Hanson T, Kulesa J, Tian J, Adriany G, Vaughan JT. Radiofrequency heating in porcine models with a “large” 32 cm internal diameter, 7 T (296 MHz) head coil. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2011;66(1):255–263. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Shrivastava D, Hanson T, Schlentz R, Gallaghar W, Snyder C, Delabarre L, Prakash S, Iaizzo P, Vaughan JT. Radiofrequency heating at 9.4T: in vivo temperature measurement results in swine. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2008;59(1):73–78. doi: 10.1002/mrm.21425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Shuman WP, Haynor DR, Guy AW, Wesbey GE, Schaefer DJ, Moss AA. Superficial- and deep-tissue temperature increases in anesthetized dogs during exposure to high specific absorption rates in a 1.5-T MR imager. Radiology. 1988;167(2):551–554. doi: 10.1148/radiology.167.2.3357971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Stuchly MA, Abrishamkar H, Strydom ML. Numerical evaluation of radio frequency power deposition in human models during MRI. Conference proceedings : Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Annual Conference. 2006;1:272–275. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2006.259880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.van Lier AL, Kotte AN, Raaymakers BW, Lagendijk JJ, van den Berg CA. Radiofrequency heating induced by 7T head MRI: thermal assessment using discrete vasculature or Pennes’ bioheat equation. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2012;35(4):795–803. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.van Rhoon GC, Samaras T, Yarmolenko PS, Dewhirst MW, Neufeld E, Kuster N. CEM43 degrees C thermal dose thresholds: a potential guide for magnetic resonance radiofrequency exposure levels? European radiology. 2013;23(8):2215–2227. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2825-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Voigt T, Homann H, Katscher U, Doessel O. Patient-individual local SAR determination: in vivo measurements and numerical validation. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2012;68(4):1117–1126. doi: 10.1002/mrm.23322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Wang Z, Lin JC, Vaughan JT, Collins CM. Consideration of physiological response in numerical models of temperature during MRI of the human head. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2008;28(5):1303–1308. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Wolf S, Diehl D, Gebhardt M, Mallow J, Speck O. SAR simulations for high-field MRI: how much detail, effort, and accuracy is needed? Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2013;69(4):1157–1168. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Budinger TF, Fischer H, Hentschel D, Reinfelder HE, Schmitt F. Physiological effects of fast oscillating magnetic field gradients. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 1991;15(6):909–914. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199111000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Andreuccetti D, Contessa GM, Falsaperla R, Lodato R, Pinto R, Zoppetti N, Rossi P. Weighted-peak assessment of occupational exposure due to MRI gradient fields and movements in a nonhomogeneous static magnetic field. Medical physics. 2013;40(1):011910. doi: 10.1118/1.4771933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Bencsik M, Bowtell R, Bowley R. Electric fields induced in the human body by time-varying magnetic field gradients in MRI: numerical calculations and correlation analysis. Physics in medicine and biology. 2007;52(9):2337–2353. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/9/001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA, Schaefer DJ. Physiologic effects of intense MR imaging gradient fields. Neuroimaging clinics of North America. 1999;9(2):363–377. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Cohen MS, Weisskoff RM, Rzedzian RR, Kantor HL. Sensory stimulation by time-varying magnetic fields. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1990;14(2):409–414. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910140226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.de Vocht F, Liket L, De Vocht A, Mistry T, Glover P, Gowland P, Kromhout H. Exposure to alternating electromagnetic fields and effects on the visual and visuomotor systems. The British journal of radiology. 2007;80(958):822–828. doi: 10.1259/bjr/22263979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Doherty JU, Whitman GJ, Robinson MD, Harken AH, Simson MB, Spear JF, Josephson ME. Changes in cardiac excitability and vulnerability in NMR fields. Investigative radiology. 1985;20(2):129–135. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198503000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Ehrhardt JC, Lin CS, Magnotta VA, Fisher DJ, Yuh WT. Peripheral nerve stimulation in a whole-body echo-planar imaging system. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 1997;7(2):405–409. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880070226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Feldman RE, Hardy CJ, Aksel B, Schenck J, Chronik BA. Experimental determination of human peripheral nerve stimulation thresholds in a 3-axis planar gradient system. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2009;62(3):763–770. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Glover PM, Eldeghaidy S, Mistry TR, Gowland PA. Measurement of visual evoked potential during and after periods of pulsed magnetic field exposure. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1353–1356. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Ham CL, Engels JM, van de Wiel GT, Machielsen A. Peripheral nerve stimulation during MRI: effects of high gradient amplitudes and switching rates. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 1997;7(5):933–937. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880070524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Kangarlu A, Tang L, Ibrahim TS. Electric field measurements and computational modeling at ultrahigh-field MRI. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2007;25(8):1222–1226. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2007.01.115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.King KF, Schaefer DJ. Spiral scan peripheral nerve stimulation. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2000;12(1):164–170. doi: 10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<164::aid-jmri18>3.0.co;2-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Li Y, Hand JW, Wills T, Hajnal JV. Numerically-simulated induced electric field and current density within a human model located close to a z-gradient coil. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1286–1295. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Mansfield P, Harvey PR. Limits to neural stimulation in echo-planar imaging. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1993;29(6):746–758. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910290606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Schaefer DJ, Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA. Review of patient safety in time-varying gradient fields. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2000;12(1):20–29. doi: 10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<20::aid-jmri3>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Vogt FM, Ladd ME, Hunold P, Mateiescu S, Hebrank FX, Zhang A, Debatin JF, Gohde SC. Increased time rate of change of gradient fields: effect on peripheral nerve stimulation at clinical MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;233(2):548–554. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2332030428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Weinberg IN, Stepanov PY, Fricke ST, Probst R, Urdaneta M, Warnow D, Sanders H, Glidden SC, McMillan A, Starewicz PM, Reilly JP. Increasing the oscillation frequency of strong magnetic fields above 101 kHz significantly raises peripheral nerve excitation thresholds. Medical physics. 2012;39(5):2578–2583. doi: 10.1118/1.3702775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.American College of Radiology (ACR) [Accessed November 8, 2015];Manual on Contrast Media, Version 9. 2013 http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/resources/~/media/37D84428BF1D4E1B9A3A2918DA9E27A3.pdf.
- 137.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Criteria for Significant Risk Investigations of Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices. Jul 14, 2003. [Accessed November 8, 2015]. [Google Scholar]
- 138.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, CDRH, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Criteria for Significant Risk Investigations of Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices. Jul 14, 2003. [Accessed November 8, 2015]. [Google Scholar]
- 139. [Accessed November 8, 2015];ACR MR Safety. Available at http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/radiology-safety/mr-safety.
- 140.Sammet S, Koch RM, Aguila F, Knopp MV. Residual magnetism in an MRI suite after field-rampdown: what are the issues and experiences? Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2010;31(5):1272–1276. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Collins CM, Wang Z. Calculation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and their effects in MRI of human subjects. Magnetic resonance in medicine : official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2011;65(5):1470–1482. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Machata AM, Willschke H, Kabon B, Prayer D, Marhofer P. Effect of brain magnetic resonance imaging on body core temperature in sedated infants and children. British journal of anaesthesia. 2009;102(3):385–389. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Woods TO. Standards for medical devices in MRI: present and future. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(5):1186–1189. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.ASTM F2119-01 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of MR Image Artifacts From Passive Implants. [Accessed November 8, 2015]; [Google Scholar]
- 145.Kanal E, Shellock FG, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;176(3):593–606. doi: 10.1148/radiology.176.3.2202008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.IEC 601-2-33 - Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 2: Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. [Accessed November 8, 2015]; [Google Scholar]
- 147.International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Medical Electrical Equipment, Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis, International Standard IEC 6060, 1-2-33, 2002. [Accessed November 8, 2015]; [Google Scholar]
- 148.Guidelines to Prevent Excessive Heating and Burns Associated with Magnetic Resonance Procedures developed by the Institute for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Education, and Research (IMRSER) [Accessed November 8, 2015]; http://www.mrisafety.com/SafetyInfov.asp?SafetyInfoID=166.
- 149.Kangarlu A, Ibrahim TS, Shellock FG. Effects of coil dimensions and field polarization on RF heating inside a head phantom. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2005;23(1):53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2004.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Hassepass F, Stabenau V, Arndt S, Beck R, Bulla S, Grauvogel T, Aschendorff A. Magnet dislocation: an increasing and serious complication following MRI in patients with cochlear implants. RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin. 2014;186(7):680–685. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1356238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.ACR_SPR Practice parameter for the safe and optimal performance of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Amended 2014 (Resolution 39)*. [Accessed November 8, 2015]; http://www.acr.org/~/media/CB384A65345F402083639E6756CE513F.pdf.
- 152.Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, Gowland PA, Mansfield P. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1994;170(1 Pt 1):32–33. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70379-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Chew S, Ahmadi A, Goh PS, Foong LC. The effects of 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging on early murine in-vitro embryo development. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2001;13(3):417–420. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Clements H, Duncan KR, Fielding K, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. The British journal of radiology. 2000;73(866):190–194. doi: 10.1259/bjr.73.866.10884733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Gilk T, Kanal E. Interrelating sentinel event alert #38 with the ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. An MRI accreditation safety review tool. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2013;37(3):531–543. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Thomsen HS. Medical radiology. Springer; Berlin: 2006. Contrast media : safety issues and esur guidelines. [Google Scholar]
- 157.Behra-Miellet J, Gressier B, Brunet C, Dine T, Luyckx M, Cazin M, Cazin JC. Free gadolinium and gadodiamide, a gadolinium chelate used in magnetic resonance imaging: evaluation of their in vitro effects on human neutrophil viability. Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology. 1996;18(7):437–442. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Mendoza FA, Artlett CM, Sandorfi N, Latinis K, Piera-Velazquez S, Jimenez SA. Description of 12 cases of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and review of the literature. Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism. 2006;35(4):238–249. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.08.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. [Accessed November 8, 2015];The International Center for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis Research (ICNSFR) by Cowper SE. Available at http://www.icnfdr.org.
- 160.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [Accessed November 8, 2015];Information on Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents. 2014 http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm142882.htm.
- 161.Brown JJ, Hynes MR, Wible JH., Jr Measurement of serum calcium concentration after administration of four gadolinium-based contrast agents to human volunteers. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2007;189(6):1539–1544. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Hussain HK, Campbell AD, Strouse PJ. Safety of gadolinium-based contrast material in sickle cell disease. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2011;34(4):917–920. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Evenepoel P, Zeegers M, Segaert S, Claes K, Kuypers D, Maes B, Flamen P, Fransis S, Vanrenterghem Y. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy: a novel, disabling disorder in patients with renal failure. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2004;19(2):469–473. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfg506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Grobner T. Gadolinium--a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2006;21(4):1104–1108. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfk062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Kanal E. An overview of electromagnetic safety considerations associated with magnetic resonance imaging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1992;649:204–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb49610.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, Dupont A, Damholt MB, Heaf JG, Thomsen HS. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN. 2006;17(9):2359–2362. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006060601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, Heaf JG, Thomsen HS. Case-control study of gadodiamide-related nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2007;22(11):3174–3178. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Umans H, Haramati N, Flusser G. The diagnostic role of gadolinium enhanced MRI in distinguishing between acute medullary bone infarct and osteomyelitis. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2000;18(3):255–262. doi: 10.1016/s0730-725x(99)00137-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Westwood MA, Shah F, Anderson LJ, Strange JW, Tanner MA, Maceira AM, Howard J, Porter JB, Walker JM, Wonke B, Pennell DJ. Myocardial tissue characterization and the role of chronic anemia in sickle cell cardiomyopathy. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2007;26(3):564–568. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Zimmerman RA. MRI/MRA evaluation of sickle cell disease of the brain. Pediatric radiology. 2005;35(3):249–257. doi: 10.1007/s00247-005-1420-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Thorpe S, Salkovskis PM, Dittner A. Claustrophobia in MRI: the role of cognitions. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2008;26(8):1081–1088. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.01.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Conquering claustrophobia during your MRI. The Johns Hopkins medical letter health after 50. 2002;14(9):3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Dantendorfer K, Wimberger D, Katschnig H, Imhoff H. Claustrophobia in MRI scanners. Lancet. 1991;338(8769):761–762. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91486-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA. Adult claustrophobia, anxiety and sedation in MRI. Magnetic resonance imaging. 1997;15(1):51–54. doi: 10.1016/s0730-725x(96)00351-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Phelps LA. MRI and claustrophobia. American family physician. 1990;42(4):930. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Wahba H. Minimizing claustrophobia in an MRI scanner. Nursing. 1995;25(7):32C–32D. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Serafini G, Ongaro L, Mori A, Rossi C, Cavalloro F, Tagliaferri C, Mencherini S, Braschi A. Anesthesia for MRI in the paediatric patient. Minerva anestesiologica. 2005;71(6):361–366. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Pilling D, Abernethy L, Wright N, Carty H. Sedation, safety and MRI. The British journal of radiology. 2001;74(885):875–876. doi: 10.1259/bjr.74.885.740875b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]