Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Cardiac Imaging

    Coronary Arterial Stents: Safety and Artifacts during MR Imaging

    Published Online:Sep 1 2000https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.3.r00se03781

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and imaging artifacts with different coronary arterial stents and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging sequences.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: The heating, artifacts, and ferromagnetism with different stents were studied with a 1.5-T MR tomograph with ultrafast gradients by using turbo spin-echo, turbo gradient-echo, and echo-planar imaging sequences. Nineteen stents, which were 8–25 mm in length and 3.0–4.5 mm in diameter, were evaluated. Stent deviation induced by the magnetic field and during MR imaging, migration, and heating caused by the radio-frequency pulses were examined. The size of imaging artifacts was measured with all the stents under standardized conditions and with six stents after their implantation into the coronary arteries of freshly explanted pig hearts.

    RESULTS: All except two types of stents showed minimal ferromagnetism. No device migration or heating was induced. Turbo spin-echo images had minimal artifacts; larger artifacts were seen on the turbo gradient-echo and echo-planar images. With ultrafast gradients, the artifacts on the echo-planar images were substantially reduced.

    CONCLUSION: The studied coronary stents were not influenced by heating or motion during 1.5-T MR imaging. Artifact size differed according to the type and size of the stent and the MR imaging sequence used. Thus, patients with these stents can be safely examined.

    References

    • 1 Waller B. “Crackers, breakers, stretchers, drillers, scrapers, shavers, burners, welders and melters”: the future treatment of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease?—a clinical-morphologic assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13:969-987. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 de Jaegere P, de Feyter P, van der Giessen W, Serruys P. Endovascular stents: preliminary clinical results and future developments. Clin Cardiol 1993; 16:369-378. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3 Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, Joffre F, Kappenberger L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1987; 316:701-706. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Pettigrew R. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in acquired heart disease. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1991; 12:61-91. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 5 Nienaber C, von Kodolitsch Y, Nicolas V, et al. The diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection by noninvasive imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1-9. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6 Goldfarb JW, Edelman RR. Coronary arteries: breath-hold, gadolinium-enhanced, three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology 1998; 206:830-834. Link, Google Scholar
    • 7 Pennell DJ, Bogren HG, Keegan J, Firmin DN, Underwood SR. Assessment of coronary artery stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging. Heart 1996; 75:127-133. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8 Kessler W, Achenbach S, Moshage W, et al. Usefulness of respiratory gated magnetic resonance coronary angiography in assessing narrowings > or = 50% in diameter in native coronary arteries and in aortocoronary bypass conduits. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:989-993. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9 Post JC, van Rossum AC, Hofman MB, Valk J, Visser CA. Three-dimensional respiratory-gated MR angiography of coronary arteries: comparison with conventional coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:1399-1404. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10 Nagel E, Lehmkuhl H, Bocksch W, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of ischemia-induced wall motion abnormalities with the use of high-dose dobutamine stress MRI: comparison with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Circulation 1999; 99:763-770. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11 New P, Rosen B, Brady T, et al. Potential hazards and artifacts of ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic surgical and dental materials and devices in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1983; 147:139-148. Link, Google Scholar
    • 12 Scott N, Pettigrew R. Absence of movement of coronary stents after placement in a magnetic resonance imaging field. Am J Cardiol 1994; 73:900-901. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13 Bernardino M, Steinberg H, Pearson T, Gedgaudas-McClees R, Torres W, Henderson J. Shunts for portal hypertension: MR and angiography for determination of patency. Radiology 1986; 158:57-61. Link, Google Scholar
    • 14 Shellock F, Crues J. High-field-strength MR imaging and metallic biomedical implants: an ex vivo evaluation of deflection forces. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:389-392. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 15 Shellock F. Biological effects and safety aspects of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Q 1989; 5:243-261. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16 Teitelbaum GP, Yee CA, Van Horn DD, Kim HS, Colletti PM. Metallic ballistic fragments: MR imaging safety and artifacts. Radiology 1990; 175:855-859. Link, Google Scholar
    • 17 Shellock F, Kanal E. Policies, guidelines, and recommendations for MR imaging and patient management: SMRI Safety Committee. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991; 1:97-101. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18 Kanal E, Shellock F, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology 1990; 176:593-606. Link, Google Scholar
    • 19 Leon J, Gabriele O. Middle ear prosthesis: significance in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1987; 5:405-406. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20 Mark A, Hricak H. Intrauterine contraceptive devices: MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 162:311-314. Link, Google Scholar
    • 21 Shellock F, Shellock V. Ceramic surgical instruments: ex vivo evaluation of compatibility with MR imaging at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 6:954-956. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22 Fagan LL, Shellock FG, Brenner RJ, Rothman B. Ex vivo evaluation of ferromag-netism, heating, and artifacts of breast tissue expanders exposed to a 1.5-T MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5:614-616. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23 Barrafato D, Henkelman R. Magnetic res-onance imaging and surgical clips. Can J Surg 1984; 27:509-10, 512. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 24 Dujovny M, Kossovsky N, Kossowsky R, et al. Aneurysm clip motion during magnetic resonance imaging: in vivo experimental study with metallurgical factor analysis. Neurosurgery 1985; 17:543-548. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25 Shellock F, Kanal E. Aneurysm clips: evaluation of MR imaging artifacts at 1.5 T. Radiology 1998; 209:563-566. Link, Google Scholar
    • 26 Teitelbaum GP, Lin MC, Watanabe AT, Norfray JF, Young TI, Bradley WG, Jr. Ferromagnetism and MR imaging: safety of carotid vascular clamps. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990; 11:267-272. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27 Hassler M, Le Bas J, Wolf J, Contamin C, Waksmann B, Coulomb M. Effects of the magnetic field in magnetic resonance imaging on 15 tested cardiac valve prostheses. J Radiol 1986; 67:661-666. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 28 Soulen R, Budinger T, Higgins C. Magnetic resonance imaging of prosthetic heart valves. Radiology 1985; 154:705-707. Link, Google Scholar
    • 29 Teitelbaum G, Bradley WG, Jr, Klein B. MR imaging artifacts, ferromagnetism, and magnetic torque of intravascular filters, stents, and coils. Radiology 1988; 166:657-664. Link, Google Scholar
    • 30 Marshall M, Teitelbaum G, Kim H, Develkis J. Ferromagnetism and magnetic resonance artifacts of platinum embolization microcoils. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1991; 14:163-166. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 31 Zheutlin J, Thompson J, Shofner R. The safety of magnetic resonance imaging with intraorbital metallic objects after retinal reattachment or trauma. Am J Ophthalmol 1987; 103:831. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 32 Shellock F, Nogueira M, Morisoli S. MR imaging and vascular access ports: ex vivo evaluation of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5:481-484. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 33 Shellock F, Shellock V. Vascular access ports and catheters: ex vivo testing of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts associated with MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 4:443-447. Google Scholar
    • 34 Hofman MB, Wickline SA, Lorenz CH. Quantification of in-plane motion of the coronary arteries during the cardiac cycle: implications for acquisition window duration for MR flow quantification. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 8:568-576. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 35 Davis P, Crooks L, Arakawa M, McRee R, Kaufmann L, Margulis A. Potential hazards in NMR imaging: heating effects of changing magnetic fields and RF fields on small metallic implants. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981; 137:857-860. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 36 Shellock F. MR imaging of metallic implants and materials: a compilation of the literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:811-814. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 37 Bellon E, Haacke E, Coleman P, Sacco D, Steiger D, Gangarosa R. MR artifacts: a review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986; 147:1271-1281. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 38 Heindel W, Friedmann G, Bunke J, Thomas B, Firsching R, Ernestus R. Artifacts in MR imaging after surgical intervention. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1986; 10:596-599. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 39 Augustiny N, von Schulthess G, Meier D, Bosiger P. MR imaging of large nonferromagnetic metallic implants at 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1987; 11:678-683. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 40 Lüdecke KM, Roeschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artifacts in NMR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1985; 3:329-343. Crossref, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Published in print: Sept 2000