Safety of MR Imaging at 1.5 T in Fetuses: A Retrospective Case-Control Study of Birth Weights and the Effects of Acoustic Noise.

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of exposure to routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 1.5 T during pregnancy on fetal growth and neonatal hearing function in relation to the dose and timing of in utero exposure in a group of newborns at low risk for congenital hearing impairment or deafness. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective case-control study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was waived. Between January 2008 and December 2012, a group of 751 neonates exposed to MR imaging in utero and a group of control subjects comprising 10 042 nonexposed neonates, both groups with no risk factors for hearing impairment at birth, were included. Neonatal hearing screening was performed by means of otoacoustic emission testing and auditory brain stem response according to national guidelines, and the prevalence of hearing impairment in the two groups was compared by using a noninferiority test with Wilson score confidence intervals. The effect of MR exposure on birth weight percentile was examined between the singleton neonates in the exposed group and a randomly chosen subset of 1805 singleton newborns of the nonexposed group by performing an analysis of variance. RESULTS The rate of hearing impairment or deafness was found to be 0% (0 of 751) in the neonates in the exposed group and was not inferior to that in the nonexposed group (34 of 10 042 [0.34%], P < .05). There was no between-group difference in birth weight percentiles (50.6% for exposed vs 48.4% for nonexposed; P = .22). CONCLUSION This study showed no adverse effects of exposure to 1.5-T MR imaging in utero on neonatal hearing function or birth weight percentiles.

[1]  Lisa Holden-Pitt,et al.  Thirty Years of the Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children & Youth: A Glance Over the Decades , 1998, American annals of the deaf.

[2]  P Mansfield,et al.  An assessment of the intrauterine sound intensity level during obstetric echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  A R Palmer,et al.  Sound‐Level Measurements and Calculations of Safe Noise Dosage During EPI at 3 T , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  M. Paley,et al.  Neonatal cochlear function: measurement after exposure to acoustic noise during in utero MR imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[5]  Arend Heerschap,et al.  Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5 T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[6]  C. Woodfield,et al.  MR imaging evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy: appendicitis and other nonobstetric causes. , 2012, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[7]  R. Abrams,et al.  Fetal Exposures to Sound and Vibroacoustic Stimulation , 2000, Journal of Perinatology.

[8]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[9]  Takeo Ishigaki,et al.  Measurement and evaluation of the acoustic noise of a 3 Tesla MR scanner. , 2007, Nagoya journal of medical science.

[10]  P. Hepper,et al.  Development of fetal hearing , 1994, Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition.

[11]  H. Fujita,et al.  Characteristics of acoustic noise in echo-planar imaging. , 2001, Frontiers of medical and biological engineering : the international journal of the Japan Society of Medical Electronics and Biological Engineering.

[12]  P. Mansfield,et al.  A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance , 1994 .

[13]  R. Abrams,et al.  Effects of intense noise exposure on fetal sheep auditory brain stem response and inner ear histology. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[14]  D Atkinson,et al.  Determination of gradient magnetic field‐induced acoustic noise associated with the use of echo planar and three‐dimensional, fast spin echo techniques , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  P. Gowland,et al.  Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  A. Wilkinson,et al.  New birthweight and head circumference centiles for gestational ages 24 to 42 weeks. , 1987, Early human development.

[17]  P A Gowland,et al.  Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  M. Hildesheimer,et al.  Low prevalence of hearing impairment among very low birthweight infants as detected by universal neonatal hearing screening , 2006, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[19]  F G Shellock,et al.  Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[20]  Jackson Roush,et al.  Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs , 2007, Pediatrics.

[21]  A. Davarpanah,et al.  Integrating MR imaging into the clinical workup of pregnant patients suspected of having appendicitis is associated with a lower negative laparotomy rate: single-institution study. , 2013, Radiology.

[22]  R. Abrams,et al.  Sound Levels in the Human Uterus , 1992, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[23]  M. Liberman,et al.  Primary Neural Degeneration in the Guinea Pig Cochlea After Reversible Noise-Induced Threshold Shift , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[24]  R. Abrams,et al.  Intrauterine noise levels produced in pregnant ewes by sound applied to the abdomen. , 1988, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  Mitchell M Goodsitt,et al.  Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 1, evidence-based review and recommendations. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.