Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:35:54.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comprehensive Analysis of MRI Research Risks: In Support of Full Disclosure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Jennifer Marshall ,
Toby Martin ,
Jocelyn Downie  and
Krisztina Malisza
Jennifer Marshall
Affiliation:
Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Toby Martin
Affiliation:
St. Amant, Centre, Winnipeg, MB
Jocelyn Downie
Affiliation:
Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Krisztina Malisza
Affiliation:
Institute for Biodiagnostics, National Research Council, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures have been used for over 20 years. This modality is considered relatively safe and holds great promise. Yet, MRI has a number of risks. In order for MRI research to meet the Canadian standard of disclosure, the investigator must communicate and make note of all risks in their research protocols and consent forms. Those creating and reviewing research protocols and consent forms must take notice of the different circumstances under which MRI poses a risk. First, this paper will describe the current standard of disclosure in Canada for research participants. Second, the paper will provide a comprehensive synthesis of the known physical and psychological risks associated with MRI. Third, the paper will provide recommendations concerning areas for further investigation and risk reduction strategies. This information will thus equip researchers and research ethics boards (REBs) with the criteria needed for the composition of research protocols that meet the Canadian disclosure standard.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:

L'imagerie par résonance magnétique (IRM) est utilisée en clinique depuis plus de 20 ans. Elle est considérée relativement sût très prometteuse. Cependant l'IRM comporte certains risques. L'investigateur doit noter tous les risques dans ses protocoles de recherche et les indiquer dans les formulaires de consentement, afin que la recherche en IRM rencontre les standards canadiens sur la divulgation. Ceux qui élaborent les protocoles de recherche et les formulaires de consentement ainsi que ceux qui les révisent doivent signaler dans quelles conditions l'IMR comporte des risques. Cet article décrit d'abord les standards canadiens actuels de divulgation aux sujets de recherche, puis présente une synthèse extensive des risques physiques et psychologiques connus associés à l'IRM et enfin formule des recommandations, dans le corps de l'article et sous forme de table sommaire, concernant les aspects qui doivent être investigués davantage et les stratégies de réduction des risques. Cette information fournira aux chercheurs et aux comités d'éthique de la recherche les critères nécessaires à la rédaction de formulaires de consentement et de protocoles de recherche qui rencontrent les standards canadiens de divulgation.

Type
Review Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 11 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2007

References

1. Shellock, FG, Crues, JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004;232:635–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Gooden, CK. Anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Opin Anesthesiology. 2004;17:339–42.Google Scholar
3. Chung, SM. Safety issues in magnetic resonance imaging. J Neuro-Ophthalmol. 2002;22:35–9.Google Scholar
4. Glass, KC, Lemmens, T. Research involving humans. 2nd ed. In: Downie, J, Caulfield, T, Flood, C, editors. Canadian Health Law and Policy. Markham: Butterworths; 2002. p. 459–500.Google Scholar
5. Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS): Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2003.Google Scholar
6. Health Protection Branch, Environmental Health Directorate, Minister of National Health and Welfare. Safety Code-26: Guidelines on exposure to electromagnetic fields from magnetic resonance clinical systems. Ottawa (Canada);1987.Google Scholar
7. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Magnetic Resonance Working Group. A primer on medical device interactions with magnetic resonance imaging systems. Washington, D.C.: US FDA; 1997.Google Scholar
8. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). MRI safety. Washington, D.C: US FDA; 2001.Google Scholar
9. Shellock, FG, Reference Manual for magnetic resonance safety, implants, and devices. 2004 ed. Los Angeles: Biomedical Research Publishing Company; 2004.Google Scholar
10. Schenck, JF. Physical interactions of static magnetic fields with living tissues. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2005;87:185–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Shellock, FG, Crues, JV. MR Safety and the American College of Radiology White Paper. AJR. 2002;178:1349–52.Google Scholar
12. Kean, M. MR safety in the pediatric MR environment. SMRT Educational Seminars, vol. 8(3) p. 20–30.Google Scholar
13. US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). Guidance for industry and FDA staff: criteria for significant risk investigations of magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. Washington D.C.; 2003.Google Scholar
14. Harding, P. Guidelines for ethics approval of research protocols involving human exposure to magnetic resonance imaging. London (Canada): University of Western Ontario; 2000.Google Scholar
15. Schaefer, DJ. Safety aspects of radiofrequency power deposition in magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Imaging Clinics N Am. 1998;6:775–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Kanal, E. An overview of electromagnetic safety considerations associated with magnetic resonance imaging. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1992;649:204–24.Google Scholar
17. Athey, TW. Current FDA guidance for MR patient exposure and considerations for the future. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1992;649: 242–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Schaefer, DJ, Felmlee, JP. Radio frequency safety in MRI examinations. SMRT Educational Seminars. vol. 8(3) p. 11–19.Google Scholar
19. Laurell, GF. Combined effects of noise and Cisplatin: short- and long-term follow-up. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1992;101: 969–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Philbin, MK, Taber, KH, Hayman, LA. Preliminary report: changes in vital signs of term newborns during MR. AJNR. 1996;17: 1033–36.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Bernhardt, JH. Non-ionizing radiation safety: radiofrequency radiation, electric and magnetic fields. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37:807–44.Google Scholar
22. ACR White paper on magnetic resonance (MR) safety. Combined papers of 2002 and 2004. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2004.Google Scholar
23. Mayo, Clinic. Anesthesia: Options and Considerations. [updated 2005 Oct 7; cited 2006 June 17]. Available from: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/anesthesia/SC00026/.Google Scholar
24. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Drugs. Prolonged recovery and delayed side effects of sedation for diagnostic imaging studies in children. Pediatrics. 2000; 105: 42–6.Google Scholar
25. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pediatrics. 1992; 89: 1110–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Updated Practice Guidelines for Sedation and Analgesia by Non-anesthesiologists. Park Ridge: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA); August, 2001.Google Scholar
27. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Standards and intents for sedation and anesthesia care. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Chicago: JCAHO; 2002. Report No. TX 2-2.Google Scholar
28. Mamourian, A. Incidental findings on research functional MR images: Should we look? ANJR. 2004;25:520–2.Google Scholar
29. Kim, BS, Illes, J, Kaplan, RT, Reiss, A, Atlas, SW. Incidental findings on pediatric MR images of the brain. AJNR. 2002;23:1674–7.Google ScholarPubMed
30. Harris, LM, Robinson, J, Menzies, RG. Evidence for fear of restriction and fear of suffocation as components of claustrophobia. Behav Res Ther. 1999;37:155–9.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Katz, RC, Wilson, L, Frazer, N. Anxiety and its determinants in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1994;25:131–4.Google ScholarPubMed
32. Gollub, RL, Shellock, FG. Claustrophobia, anxiety, and emotional distress in the magnetic resonance environment. In: Shellock, FG, editor. Magnetic resonance procedures: Health effects and safety. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001.Google Scholar
33. Avrahami, E. Panic attacks during MR imaging: treatment with i.v. diazepam. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1990;11:833–5.Google ScholarPubMed
34. McIsaac, HK, Thordarson, DS, Shafran, R, Rachman, S, Poole, G. Claustrophobia and the magnetic resonance imaging procedure. J Behav Med. 1998;255–68.Google Scholar
35. Spielberger, CD, Gorsuch, RL, Lushene, R, Vagg, PR, Jacobs, GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.Google Scholar
36. Harris, LM, Cumming, SR, Menzies, RG. Predicting anxiety in magnetic resonance imaging scans. Int J Behav Med. 2004; 11:1–7.Google Scholar
37. Lukins, R, Davan, IG, Drummond, PD. A cognitive behavioural approach to preventing anxiety during magnetic resonance imaging. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1997;28:97–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Dantendorfer, K, Amering, M, Bankier, A, Helbich, T, Prayer, D, Youssefzadeh, S, et al. A study of the effects of patient anxiety, perceptions and equipment on motion artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;15:301–6.Google ScholarPubMed
39. Kilborn, LC, Labbé, EE. Magnetic resonance imaging scanning procedures: development of phobic response during scan and at one-month follow-up. J Behav Med. 1990;13:391–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. MacKenzie, R, Sims, C, Owens, RG, Dixon, AK. Patients’ perceptions of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:137–43.Google Scholar
41. Quirk, ME, Letendre, AJ, Ciottone, RA, Lingley, JF. Anxiety in patients undergoing MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;170:463–6.Google ScholarPubMed
42. Klonoff, EA, Janata, JW, Kaufman, B. The use of systematic desensitization to overcome resistance to magnetic resonance imaging scanning. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1986;17: 189–92.Google Scholar
43. Rosenberg, DR, Sweeney, JA, Gillen, JS, Kim, J, Varanelli, MJ, O’Hearn, KM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of children without sedation: preparation with stimulation. J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry. 1997;36:853–9.Google Scholar
44. Fishbain, DA, Goldberg, M, Labbe, E, Zacher, D, Steele-Rosomoff, R, Rosomoff, H. Long-term claustrophobia following magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;145:1038–9.Google Scholar
45. Grossman, RI, Bernat, JL. Incidental research imaging findings: Pandora’s costly box. Neurology. 2004;62: 849–50.Google Scholar
46. Illes, J, Rosen, AC, Huang, L, Goldstein, RA, Raffin, TA, Swan, G, et al. Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology. 2004;62: 888–90.Google Scholar