Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33543360›Full record

ReviewNeuroradiology2021

Clinical safety of intracranial EEG electrodes in MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T: a single-center experience and literature review.

J S Peedicail, T Poulin, J N Scott, C B Josephson, L A Bureau, W Hader, Y Starreveld, P Federico, Calgary Comprehensive Epilepsy Program Collaborators

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Intraoperative MR Imaging during Glioma Resection.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022
    Review
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J S PeedicailHotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
T PoulinHotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
J N ScottDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
C B JosephsonHotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
L A BureauDepartment of Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
W HaderHotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Y StarreveldHotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
P FedericoHotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. pfederic@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9555-3569
Calgary Comprehensive Epilepsy Program Collaborators
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntracranial electroencephalography (EEG) can be a critical part of presurgical evaluation for drug resistant epilepsy. With the increasing use of intracranial EEG, the safety of these electrodes in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment remains a concern, particularly at higher field strengths. However, no studies have reported the MRI safety experience of intracranial electrodes at 3 T. We report an MRI safety review of patients with intracranial electrodes at 1.5 and 3 T.

methodsOne hundred and sixty-five consecutive admissions for intracranial EEG monitoring were reviewed. A total of 184 MRI scans were performed on 135 patients over 140 admissions. These included 118 structural MRI studies at 1.5 T and 66 functional MRI studies at 3 T. The magnetic resonance (MR) protocols avoided the use of high specific energy absorption rate sequences that could result in electrode heating. The intracranial implantations included 114 depth, 15 subdural, and 11 combined subdural and depth electrodes. Medical records were reviewed for patient-reported complications and radiologic complications related to these studies. Pre-implantation, post-implantation, and post-explantation imaging studies were reviewed for potential complications.

resultsNo adverse events or complications were seen during or after MRI scanning at 1.5 or 3 T apart from those attributed to electrode implantation. There was also no clinical or imaging evidence of worsening of pre-existing implantation-related complications after MR imaging.

conclusionNo clinical or radiographic complications are seen when performing MRI scans at 1.5 or 3 T on patients with implanted intracranial EEG electrodes while avoiding high specific energy absorption rate sequences.

Indexed as

Drug Resistant EpilepsyElectrocorticographyElectrodes, ImplantedElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingClinical safetyIntracranial electrodesMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID33543360
OpenAlexW3128493989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.