"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    Safety of MR Imaging at 1.5 T in Fetuses: A Retrospective Case-Control Study of Birth Weights and the Effects of Acoustic Noise

    Published Online:Jan 7 2015https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14141382

    Abstract

    The authors of this large study found no measurable adverse effects on hearing or intrauterine growth in neonates who underwent routine MR imaging at 1.5 T between 16 weeks of gestation and term, regardless of the timing and total duration of exposure.

    Purpose

    To evaluate the effects of exposure to routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 1.5 T during pregnancy on fetal growth and neonatal hearing function in relation to the dose and timing of in utero exposure in a group of newborns at low risk for congenital hearing impairment or deafness.

    Materials and Methods

    This retrospective case-control study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was waived. Between January 2008 and December 2012, a group of 751 neonates exposed to MR imaging in utero and a group of control subjects comprising 10 042 nonexposed neonates, both groups with no risk factors for hearing impairment at birth, were included. Neonatal hearing screening was performed by means of otoacoustic emission testing and auditory brain stem response according to national guidelines, and the prevalence of hearing impairment in the two groups was compared by using a noninferiority test with Wilson score confidence intervals. The effect of MR exposure on birth weight percentile was examined between the singleton neonates in the exposed group and a randomly chosen subset of 1805 singleton newborns of the nonexposed group by performing an analysis of variance.

    Results

    The rate of hearing impairment or deafness was found to be 0% (0 of 751) in the neonates in the exposed group and was not inferior to that in the nonexposed group (34 of 10 042 [0.34%], P < .05). There was no between-group difference in birth weight percentiles (50.6% for exposed vs 48.4% for nonexposed; P = .22).

    Conclusion

    This study showed no adverse effects of exposure to 1.5-T MR imaging in utero on neonatal hearing function or birth weight percentiles.

    © RSNA, 2015

    References

    • 1. Rapp EJ, Naim F, Kadivar K, Davarpanah A, Cornfeld D. Integrating MR imaging into the clinical workup of pregnant patients suspected of having appendicitis is associated with a lower negative laparotomy rate: single-institution study. Radiology 2013;267(1):137–144. Link, Google Scholar
    • 2. Spalluto LB, Woodfield CA, DeBenedectis CM, Lazarus E. MR imaging evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy: appendicitis and other nonobstetric causes. RadioGraphics 2012;32(2):317–334. Link, Google Scholar
    • 3. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Guideline for the Safe and Optimal Performance o5f Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) 2010. http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/MRI_Fetal.pdf. Published September 4, 2013. Accessed August 9, 2013. Google Scholar
    • 4. Wang PI, Chong ST, Kielar AZ, et al. Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 1, evidence-based review and recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198(4):778–784. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 5. Gerhardt KJ, Pierson LL, Huang X, Abrams RM, Rarey KE. Effects of intense noise exposure on fetal sheep auditory brain stem response and inner ear histology. Ear Hear 1999;20(1):21–32. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6. Rocha EB, Frasson de Azevedo M, Ximenes Filho JA. Study of the hearing in children born from pregnant women exposed to occupational noise: assessment by distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2007;73(3):359–369. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7. Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM. Fetal exposures to sound and vibroacoustic stimulation. J Perinatol 2000;20(8 Pt 2):S21–S30. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8. Reeves MJ, Brandreth M, Whitby EH, et al. Neonatal cochlear function: measurement after exposure to acoustic noise during in utero MR imaging. Radiology 2010;257(3):802–809. Link, Google Scholar
    • 9. American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007;120(4):898–921. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10. Yudkin PL, Aboualfa M, Eyre JA, Redman CW, Wilkinson AR. New birthweight and head circumference centiles for gestational ages 24 to 42 weeks. Early Hum Dev 1987;15(1):45–52. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11. Holden-Pitt L, Albertorio J. Thirty years of the Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children & Youth: a glance over the decades. Am Ann Deaf 1998;143(2):72–76. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12. NCHAM National Centerfor Hearing Assessment and Management Utah State University. What is the prevalence of congenital hearing loss? http://infanthearing.org/faq/PrevalenceOfCongentialHearingLoss-2003-09.pdf. Published September, 2003. Accessed April 9, 2013. Google Scholar
    • 13. Ari-Even Roth D, Hildesheimer M, Maayan-Metzger A, et al. Low prevalence of hearing impairment among very low birthweight infants as detected by universal neonatal hearing screening. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006;91(4):F257–F262. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14. Shellock FG, Ziarati M, Atkinson D, Chen DY. Determination of gradient magnetic field-induced acoustic noise associated with the use of echo planar and three-dimensional, fast spin echo techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998;8(5):1154–1157. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 15. Miyati T, Banno T, Fujita H, et al. Characteristics of acoustic noise in echo-planar imaging. Front Med Biol Eng 2001;10(4):345–356. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16. Foster JR, Hall DA, Summerfield AQ, Palmer AR, Bowtell RW. Sound-level measurements and calculations of safe noise dosage during EPI at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12(1):157–163. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 17. Hattori Y, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Measurement and evaluation of the acoustic noise of a 3 Tesla MR scanner. Nagoya J Med Sci 2007;69(1-2):23–28. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18. McJury M, Shellock FG. Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12(1):37–45. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Regulations (Standards-29 CFR). Occupational Safety and Health Standards Part 1910.95: Occupational noise exposure. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9735. Revised December 12, 2008. Accessed November 15, 2013. Google Scholar
    • 20. Hepper PG, Shahidullah BS. Development of fetal hearing. Arch Dis Child 1994;71(2):F81–F87. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 21. Glover P, Hykin J, Gowland P, Wright J, Johnson I, Mansfield P. An assessment of the intrauterine sound intensity level during obstetric echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 1995;68(814):1090–1094. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22. Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM, Kovaz BM, Gomez KJ, Conlon M. Intrauterine noise levels produced in pregnant ewes by sound applied to the abdomen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159(1):228–232. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23. Richards DS, Frentzen B, Gerhardt KJ, McCann ME, Abrams RM. Sound levels in the human uterus. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80(2):186–190. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 24. Lin HW, Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Primary neural degeneration in the Guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011;12(5):605–616. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25. Bharadwaj HM, Verhulst S, Shaheen L, Liberman MC, Shinn-Cunningham BG. Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound. Front Syst Neurosci 2014;8:26. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 26. Clements H, Duncan KR, Fielding K, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. Br J Radiol 2000;73(866):190–194. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27. Kok RD, de Vries MM, Heerschap A, van den Berg PP. Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5 T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22(6):851–854. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 28. Myers C, Duncan KR, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 1998;71(845):549–551. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 29. Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, Gowland PA, Mansfield P. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170(1 Pt 1):32–33. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received June 27, 2014; revision requested August 14; revision received August 27; accepted October 1; final version accepted October 16.
    Published online: Jan 07 2015
    Published in print: May 2015