Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31922311›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2020

Evaluation of a Workflow to Define Low Specific Absorption Rate MRI Protocols for Patients With Active Implantable Medical Devices.

Jessica A Martinez, Kévin Moulin, Bryan Yoo, Yu Shi, Hyun J Kim, Pablo J Villablanca, Daniel B Ennis

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SCMR expert consensus statement for cardiovascular magnetic resonance of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica A MartinezDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3274-566X
Kévin MoulinDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Bryan YooDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Yu ShiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Hyun J KimDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Pablo J VillablancaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Daniel B EnnisDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USStanford University · US

Funding

Are 3T MRI Exams Safe For Patients with Pacemakers and ICDs?R21HL127433 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ENNIS, DANIEL B · 2015 to 2016
$424k
NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL127433
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRI exams for patients with MR-conditional active implantable medical devices (AIMDs) are contraindicated unless specific conditions are met. This limits the maximum specific absorption rate (SAR, W/kg). Currently, there is no general framework to guide meeting a lower SAR limit. PURPOSE: To design and evaluate a workflow for modifying MRI protocols to whole-body SAR (WB-SAR ≤0.1 W/kg) and local-head SAR (LH-SAR ≤0.3 W/kg) limits while mitigating the impact on image quality and exam time. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Twenty healthy volunteers on head (n = 5), C-spine (n = 5), T-spine (n = 5), and L-spine (n = 5) with IRB consent. ASSESSMENT: Vendor-provided head, C-spine, T-spine, and L-spine protocols (SAR FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 1.5T/spin-echoes, gradient-echoes. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: In vitro SNR and CNR values were evaluated with a repeated measures general linear model. in vivo image quality and clinical acceptability were evaluated using a generalized estimating equation analysis (GEE). The two reader's level of agreement was analyzed using Cohen's kappa statistical analysis.

resultsUsing the workflow, SAR limits were met. LH-SAR: 0.12 ± 0.02 W/kg, median (SD) values for LH-SAR were 0.12 (0.02) W/kg and WB-SAR: 0.09 (0.01) W/kg. Examination time did not increase ≤2x the initial time. SAR DATA

conclusionThe proposed workflow provides guidance for modifying routine MRI exams to achieve low SAR limits. This can benefit patients referred for an MRI exam with low SAR MR-conditional AIMDs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:91-102.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstheses and ImplantsHumansPhantoms, ImagingProspective StudiesWorkflowactive implantable medical deviceslow SARMR-conditionalMRIMR-safetySAR

Identifiers

PMID31922311
PMCPMC8166235
OpenAlexW2999269770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.