Effects of 1.5-T versus 3-T magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses: is there a difference in postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome? Evaluation in a fetal population with left-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia.
Bayley Scales of Infant Development − 3rd Edition
Congenital diaphragmatic hernia; magnetic resonance imaging 1.5-Tesla
Magnetic resonance imaging 3-Tesla
Neurodevelopmental outcomes
Safety
Journal
Pediatric radiology
ISSN: 1432-1998
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0365332
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
received:
19
10
2022
accepted:
12
02
2023
revised:
04
02
2023
medline:
29
5
2023
pubmed:
25
2
2023
entrez:
24
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The utilization of 3-T magnetic field strength in obstetric imaging is increasingly common. It is important to ensure that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with higher magnetic field strength is safe for the fetus. Comparison of neurodevelopmental outcome in neonates undergoing prenatal MR imaging with 1.5-T versus 3-T is of interest but has not yet been examined. We hypothesized no clinically meaningful difference in neurodevelopmental outcome between fetuses undergoing 1.5-T versus 3-T fetal MR imaging. As imaging a normal fetus for research purposes is illegal in Pennsylvania, this study was conducted in a population of fetuses with left congenital diaphragmatic hernia (left-CDH). A retrospective review of neurodevelopmental outcome of fetuses with left-CDH scanned at 1.5-T (n=75) versus 3-T (n=25) magnetic field strength between July of 2012 and December of 2019 was performed. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd Edition (BSID-III). There were no statistical differences in median age of assessment (1.5-T: 18 [12, 25] versus 3-T: 21 [11, 26], P=0.79), in mean BSID-III cognitive (1.5-T: 91 ± 14 versus 3-T: 90 ± 16, P=0.82), language (1.5-T: 92 ± 20 versus 3-T: 91 ± 20, P=0.91), and motor composite (1.5-T: 89 ± 15 versus 3-T: 87 ± 18, P=0.59) scores, subscales scores (for all, P>0.50), or in risk of abnormal neuromuscular exam (P=0.29) between neonates with left-CDH undergoing a 1.5-T versus 3-T MR imaging during fetal life. Additionally, the distribution of patients with average, mildly delayed, and severely delayed BSID-III scores was similar between the two groups (for all, P>0.50). The overall distribution of the composite scores in this CDH population was similar to the general population independent of exposure to 1.5-T or 3-T fetal MR imaging. Two 3-T patients (8%) and five 1.5-T patients (7%) scored within the significant delayed range for all BSID-III domains. Subjects with lower observed-to-expected fetal lung volume (O/E FLV) and postnatal need for ECMO had lower cognitive, language, motor, and subscales scores (for all, P<0.03) regardless of being imaged at 1.5-T versus 3-T. This preliminary study suggests that, compared to 1.5-T MR imaging, fetal exposure to 3-T MR imaging does not increase the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment in fetuses with left-CDH. Additional MR imaging studies in larger CDH cohorts and other fetal populations are needed to replicate and extend the present findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The utilization of 3-T magnetic field strength in obstetric imaging is increasingly common. It is important to ensure that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with higher magnetic field strength is safe for the fetus. Comparison of neurodevelopmental outcome in neonates undergoing prenatal MR imaging with 1.5-T versus 3-T is of interest but has not yet been examined.
OBJECTIVE
We hypothesized no clinically meaningful difference in neurodevelopmental outcome between fetuses undergoing 1.5-T versus 3-T fetal MR imaging. As imaging a normal fetus for research purposes is illegal in Pennsylvania, this study was conducted in a population of fetuses with left congenital diaphragmatic hernia (left-CDH).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective review of neurodevelopmental outcome of fetuses with left-CDH scanned at 1.5-T (n=75) versus 3-T (n=25) magnetic field strength between July of 2012 and December of 2019 was performed. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd Edition (BSID-III).
RESULTS
There were no statistical differences in median age of assessment (1.5-T: 18 [12, 25] versus 3-T: 21 [11, 26], P=0.79), in mean BSID-III cognitive (1.5-T: 91 ± 14 versus 3-T: 90 ± 16, P=0.82), language (1.5-T: 92 ± 20 versus 3-T: 91 ± 20, P=0.91), and motor composite (1.5-T: 89 ± 15 versus 3-T: 87 ± 18, P=0.59) scores, subscales scores (for all, P>0.50), or in risk of abnormal neuromuscular exam (P=0.29) between neonates with left-CDH undergoing a 1.5-T versus 3-T MR imaging during fetal life. Additionally, the distribution of patients with average, mildly delayed, and severely delayed BSID-III scores was similar between the two groups (for all, P>0.50). The overall distribution of the composite scores in this CDH population was similar to the general population independent of exposure to 1.5-T or 3-T fetal MR imaging. Two 3-T patients (8%) and five 1.5-T patients (7%) scored within the significant delayed range for all BSID-III domains. Subjects with lower observed-to-expected fetal lung volume (O/E FLV) and postnatal need for ECMO had lower cognitive, language, motor, and subscales scores (for all, P<0.03) regardless of being imaged at 1.5-T versus 3-T.
CONCLUSION
This preliminary study suggests that, compared to 1.5-T MR imaging, fetal exposure to 3-T MR imaging does not increase the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment in fetuses with left-CDH. Additional MR imaging studies in larger CDH cohorts and other fetal populations are needed to replicate and extend the present findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36823375
doi: 10.1007/s00247-023-05629-2
pii: 10.1007/s00247-023-05629-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1085-1091Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Victoria T, Johnson AM, Edgar JC et al (2016) Comparison between 1.5-T and 3-T MRI for fetal imaging: is there an advantage to Imaging with a higher field strength? AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:195–201
doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14205
pubmed: 26700352
Chapman T, Alazraki AL, Eklund MJ (2018) A survey of pediatric diagnostic radiologists in North America: current practices in fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 48:1924–1935
doi: 10.1007/s00247-018-4236-3
pubmed: 30178081
Chartier AL, Bouvier MJ, McPherson DR et al (2019) The safety of maternal and fetal MRI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:1170–1173
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21400
pubmed: 31310182
Cannie MM, De Keyzer F, Van Laere S et al (2016) Potential heating effect in the gravid uterus by using 3-T MR imaging protocols: experimental study in miniature pigs. Radiology 279:754–761
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151258
pubmed: 26624974
Danzer E, Hedrick HL (2014) Controversies in the management of severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19:376–384
doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2014.10.001
pubmed: 25454678
Meyers ML, Garcia JR, Blough KL et al (2018) Fetal lung volumes by MRI: normal weekly values from 18 through 38 weeks’ gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:432–438
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19469
pubmed: 29894217
Victoria T, Danzer E, Adzick NS (2013) Use of ultrasound and MRI for evaluation of lung volumes in fetuses with isolated left congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Pediatr Surg 22:30–36
doi: 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2012.10.006
pubmed: 23395143
Wild KT, Schindewolf E, Hedrick HL et al (2022) The genomics of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a 10-year retrospective review. J Pediatr 248:108-113e102
doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.04.012
pubmed: 35430246
Barrera CA, Francavilla ML, Serai SD et al (2020) Specific absorption rate and specific energy dose: comparison of 1.5-T versus 3.0-T fetal MRI. Radiology 295:664–674
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191550
pubmed: 32255418
Danzer E, Hedrick HL (2011) Neurodevelopmental and neurofunctional outcomes in children with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Early Hum Dev 87:625–632
doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.05.005
pubmed: 21640525
Danzer E, Gerdes M, D’Agostino JA et al (2015) Neurodevelopmental outcome at one year of age in congenital diaphragmatic hernia infants not treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Pediatr Surg 50:898–903
doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.03.040
pubmed: 25818204
Danzer E, Gerdes M, D’Agostino JA et al (2013) Preschool neurological assessment in congenital diaphragmatic hernia survivors: outcome and perinatal factors associated with neurodevelopmental impairment. Early Hum Dev 89:393–400
doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2012.12.009
pubmed: 23333410
Danzer E, Gerdes M, D’Agostino JA et al (2013) Longitudinal neurodevelopmental and neuromotor outcome in congenital diaphragmatic hernia patients in the first 3 years of life. J Perinatol 33:893–898
doi: 10.1038/jp.2013.47
pubmed: 23660581
Jaimes C, Delgado J, Cunnane MB et al (2019) Does 3-T fetal MRI induce adverse acoustic effects in the neonate? A preliminary study comparing postnatal auditory test performance of fetuses scanned at 1.5 and 3 T. Pediatr Radiol 49:37–45
doi: 10.1007/s00247-018-4261-2
pubmed: 30298210
Victoria T, Bebbington MW, Danzer E et al (2012) Use of magnetic resonance imaging in prenatal prognosis of the fetus with isolated left congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Prenat Diagn 32:715–723
doi: 10.1002/pd.3890
pubmed: 22674674
Ruano R, Lazar DA, Cass DL et al (2014) Fetal lung volume and quantification of liver herniation by magnetic resonance imaging in isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:662–669
doi: 10.1002/uog.13223
pubmed: 24127326
Victoria T, Jaramillo D, Roberts TP et al (2014) Fetal magnetic resonance imaging: jumping from 1.5 to 3 tesla (preliminary experience). Pediatr Radiol 44:376–386 (quiz 373–375)
doi: 10.1007/s00247-013-2857-0
pubmed: 24671739