4.7 Article

MRI interactions of a fully implantable pressure monitoring device

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 1441-1449

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24909

Keywords

MRI safety; heating; electromagnetic modeling; medical implants

Funding

  1. New Zealand MBIE Smart Ideas project Saviour Battery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo investigate the potential patient risk and interactions between a prototype implantable pressure monitoring device and a 3T clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine to guide device design towards MR Conditional safety approval. Materials and MethodsThe pressure monitor device contained a catheter-mounted piezo-resistive pressure sensor, rechargeable battery, wireless communication system, and inductive pickup coil. Standard testing methods were used to guide experiments to investigate static field induced force and torque, radiofrequency (RF)-induced heating, image artifacts, and the MR's effect on device function. The specific clinical application of intracranial pressure monitoring was considered. RF-induced heating experiments were supported by numerical modeling of the RF body coil, the device, and experimental phantom. ResultsSensing catheter lead length and configuration was an important component of the device design. A short 150 mm length catheter produced a heating effect of less than 2 degrees C and a long 420 mm length catheter caused heating of 7.2 degrees C. Static magnetic field interactions were below standard safety risk levels and the MR did not interfere with device function; however, artifacts have the potential to interfere with image quality. ConclusionInvestigation of MR interactions at the prototype stage provides useful implantable device design guidance and confidence that an implantable pressure monitor may be able to achieve MR Conditional safety approval. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;42:1441-1449.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available