4.2 Article

Brain Magnetic Resonance Elastography on Healthy Volunteers: A Safety Study

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 423-429

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02841850902751681

Keywords

Brain; EEG; magnetic resonance elastography; safety

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a recently developed imaging technique that can directly visualize and quantitatively measure tissue elasticity. Purpose: To evaluate the safety of brain MRE on human subjects. Material and Methods: The study included 20 healthy volunteers. MRE sequence scan (drive signal not applied to external force actuator) and MRE study were separately performed on each volunteer at an interval of more than 24 hours. The heart rate and blood pressure of each volunteer were measured immediately before and after MRE sequence scan and MRE study. Electroencephalography (EEG) was also performed within 2 hours after each scan. The volunteers were asked about their experience of the two scans. Randomized-block analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data of blood pressure and heart rate. Paired t test was used to analyze the data of the two EEG examinations. The volunteers were followed up 1 week after the examination. Results: All procedures were performed on each volunteer, and no one complained of obvious discomfort. No related adverse events were reported during follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in heart rate or blood pressure. There was a statistically significant difference (P0.05) in EEG results in the right temporoparietal region. Increased power was found in the theta, delta, alpha, and beta2 bands. No brain injury was detected by the EEG examinations. Conclusion: Based on the study results, brain MRE examinations are safe to perform on human subjects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available