MRI compatibility and visibility assessment of implantable medical devices

We have developed a protocol to evaluate the magnetic resonance (MR) compatibility of implantable medical devices. The testing protocol consists of the evaluation of magnetic field‐induced movement, electric current, heating, image distortion, and device operation. In addition, current induction is evaluated with a finite element analysis simulation technique that models the effect of radiofrequency fields on each device. The protocol has been applied to several implantable infusion pumps and neurostimulators with associated attachments. Experiments were performed using a 1.5‐T whole‐body MR system with parameters selected to approximate the intended clinical and worst case configuration. The devices exhibited moderate magnetic field‐induced deflection and torque but had significant image artifacts. No heating was detected for any of the devices. Pump operation was halted in the magnetic field, but resumed after removed. Exposure to the magnetic field activated some of the neurostimulators.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 1999;9:596–603. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Potential hazards in NMR imaging: heating effects of changing magnetic fields and RF fields on small metallic implants. , 1981, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  J. H. Gallagher,et al.  The effects of nuclear magnetic resonance on patients with cardiac pacemakers. , 1983, Radiology.

[3]  W S Hinshaw,et al.  Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. , 1983, Radiology.

[4]  D L Hayes,et al.  The Effects of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagers on External and Implantable Pulse Generators , 1984, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[5]  T F Budinger,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of prosthetic heart valves. , 1985, Radiology.

[6]  D L Hayes,et al.  The Effects of Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Implantable Pulse Generators , 1986, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[7]  F G Shellock,et al.  High-field-strength MR imaging and metallic biomedical implants: an ex vivo evaluation of deflection forces. , 1988, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  W G Bradley,et al.  MR imaging artifacts, ferromagnetism, and magnetic torque of intravascular filters, stents, and coils. , 1988, Radiology.

[9]  R. Buchli,et al.  Heating effects of metallic implants by MRI examinations , 1988, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[10]  E Kanal,et al.  Safety considerations in MR imaging. , 1990, Radiology.

[11]  Reinhard Von Roemeling,et al.  MR imaging of patients with implanted drug infusion pumps , 1991, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  F G Shellock,et al.  Ex vivo evaluation of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts produced by heart valve prostheses exposed to a 1.5‐T MR system , 1994, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[13]  F. Shellock,et al.  Biopsy needles and devices: Assessment of ferromagnetism and artifacts during exposure to a 1.5‐T MR system , 1995, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[14]  J. Schenck.  The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. , 1996, Medical physics.

[15]  R. Vosshenrich,et al.  Measurements of magnetism-related forces and torque moments affecting medical instruments, implants, and foreign objects during magnetic resonance imaging at all degrees of freedom. , 1996, Medical physics.