The Effect of MRI 3 Tesla in Diagnosis and Treatment of Neurological and Heart Diseases: Systematic Review

Document Type : مقاله بازآموزی

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Knowledge Utilization Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Health Management and Economics, Knowledge Utilization Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 MSc in Health Economics, Health Technology Assessment Office, Deputy of Curative Affairs, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran

4 PhD Student of Health Care Management, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Resident Epidemiology, Department. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a relatively new medical technology with various applications. This study aims to evaluate the performance of this technology in diagnosis and treatment of heart and neurological diseases.Methods: In this systematic review, electronic databases including the Cochrane library (DARE, NHS EEDs, CENTRAL and Cochrane systematic reviews), MEDLINE، EMBASE and TRIP were searched which retrieved 25 articles. Inclusion criteria were studies in which MRI 3 Tesla was compared with a reference standard method including MRI 1.5 Tesla, and the outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, signal to noise ratio (SNR) and safety.Finding: 25 papers were included. Most of them had a relatively good quality. The majority showed that the diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) of 3 Tesla was higher than 1.5 Tesla. The SN of 3 Tesla varied between 79 and 91% compared to 79 and 90% for 1.5 Tesla. The SP of 3 Tesla varied between 76 and 95% for 3 Tesla compared to 67 and 87% for 1.5 Tesla. Most of studies showed that the technical quality of images was higher with 3 Tesla compared to 1.5 Tesla. Both 1.5 and 3 Tesla were safe although 3 Tesla led to slightly more sensory stimuli. Conclusion: The diagnostic and technical performance of 3 Tesla is slightly higher than 1.5 Tesla. 3 Tesla is slightly better in diagnosis of some specific cases.

Keywords

References

  1. Tesla (unit) [Online]. available from: URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla_%28unit%29&oldid=195207498
  2. Sandrick K. 3–tesla MRI bests 1.5–tesla in body and brain. [online]. [cited 2008]. Available from: URL: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/dimag/legacy/advancedMR/3tmri.html
  3. Rosano C, Krisky CM, Welling JS, Eddy WF, Luna B, Thulborn KR, et al. Pursuit and saccadic eye movement subregions in human frontal eye field: a high-resolution fMRI investigation. Cereb Cortex 2002; 12(2): 107-15.
  4. Stroman PW, Krause V, Malisza KL, Frankenstein UN, Tomanek B. Characterization of contrast changes in functional MRI of the human spinal cord at 1.5 T. Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 19(6): 833-8.
  5. Thulborn KR, Chang SY, Shen GX, Voyvodic JT. High-resolution echo-planar fMRI of human visual cortex at 3.0 tesla. NMR Biomed 1997; 10(4-5): 183-90.
  6. Stenger VA, Peltier S, Boada FE, Noll DC. 3D spiral cardiac/respiratory ordered fMRI data acquisition at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 1999; 41(5): 983-91.
  7. Altun E, Semelka RC, Dale BM, Elias J, Jr. Water excitation MPRAGE: an alternative sequence for postcontrast imaging of the abdomen in noncooperative patients at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27(5): 1146-54.
  8. Fujii Y, Nakayama N, Nakada T. High-resolution T2-reversed magnetic resonance imaging on a high magnetic field system. Technical note. J Neurosurg 1998; 89(3): 492-5.
  9. Yoneoka Y, Watanabe N, Matsuzawa H, Tsumanuma I, Ueki S, Nakada T, et al. Preoperative depiction of cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary macroadenoma using three-dimensional anisotropy contrast periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction imaging on a 3-tesla system. J Neurosurg 2008; 108(1): 37-41.
  10. Carlani M, Mancino S, Bonanno E, Finazzi AE, Simonetti G. Combined morphological, [1H]-MR spectroscopic and contrast-enhanced imaging of human prostate cancer with a 3-Tesla scanner: preliminary experience. Radiol Med 2008; 113(5): 670-88.
  11. Hall WA, Galicich W, Bergman T, Truwit CL. 3-Tesla intraoperative MR imaging for neurosurgery. J Neurooncol 2006; 77(3): 297-303.
  12. Clarke GD, Rahal A, Morin RL. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla: time to begin, again. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1(7): 524-6.
  13. Matsuura H, Inoue T, Ogasawara K, Sasaki M, Konno H, Kuzu Y, et al. Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: comparison of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 Tesla magnetic fields. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2005; 45(8): 395-8.
  14. Trattnig S, Pinker K, Ba-Ssalamah A, Nobauer-Huhmann IM. The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(6): 1280-7.
  15. Reichenbach JR, Barth M, Haacke EM, Klarhofer M, Kaiser WA, Moser E. High-resolution MR venography at 3.0 Tesla. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000; 24(6): 949-57.
  16. Kim DS, Garwood M. High-field magnetic resonance techniques for brain research. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2003; 13(5): 612-9.
  17. Griffin N, Joubert I, Lomas DJ, Bearcroft PW, Dixon AK. High resolution imaging of the knee on 3-Tesla MRI: a pictorial review. Clin Anat 2008; 21(5): 374-82.
  18. Fukatsu H. 3T MR for clinical use: update. Magn Reson Med Sci 2003; 2(1): 37-45.
  19. Tieleman A, Vandemaele P, Seurinck R, Deblaere K, Achten E. Comparison between functional magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: effect of increased field strength on 4 paradigms used during presurgical work-up. Invest Radiol 2007; 42(2): 130-8.
  20. Briellmann RS, Pell GS, Wellard RM, Mitchell LA, Abbott DF, Jackson GD. MR imaging of epilepsy: state of the art at 1.5 T and potential of 3 T. Epileptic Disord 2003; 5(1): 3-20.
  21. Ligabue G, Fiocchi F, Ferraresi S, Barbieri A, Rossi R, Modena MG, et al. 3-Tesla MRI for the evaluation of myocardial viability: a comparative study with 1.5-Tesla MRI. Radiol Med 2008; 113(3): 347-62.
  22. Bachmann R, Reilmann R, Schwindt W, Kugel H, Heindel W, Kramer S. FLAIR imaging for multiple sclerosis: a comparative MR study at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(4): 915-21.
  23. Edelman RR, Salanitri G, Brand R, Dunkle E, Ragin A, Li W, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla: qualitative and quantitative comparison with 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006; 41(2): 175-80.
  24. Scheid R, Ott DV, Roth H, Schroeter ML, von Cramon DY. Comparative magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla for the evaluation of traumatic microbleeds. J Neurotrauma 2007; 24(12): 1811-6.
  25. Wieners G, Detert J, Streitparth F, Pech M, Fischbach F, Burmester G, et al. High-resolution MRI of the wrist and finger joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2007; 17(8): 2176-82.
  26. Weintraub MI, Khoury A, Cole SP. Biologic effects of 3 Tesla (T) MR imaging comparing traditional 1.5 T and 0.6 T in 1023 consecutive outpatients. J Neuroimaging 2007; 17(3): 241-5.
  27. Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Ba-Ssalamah A, Mlynarik V, Barth M, Schoggl A, Heimberger K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement of brain tumors at 3 tesla versus 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2002; 37(3): 114-9.
  28. Cheng AS, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD, Searle N, Jerosch-Herold M, Choudhury RP, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49(25): 2440-9.
  29. Nielsen K, Rostrup E, Frederiksen JL, Knudsen S, Mathiesen HK, Hanson LG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla detects more lesions in acute optic neuritis than at 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006; 41(2): 76-82.
  30. Diehm N, Kickuth R, Baumgartner I, Srivastav SK, Gretener S, Husmann MJ, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography in infrapopliteal arterial disease: prospective comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2007; 42(6): 467-76.
  31. Harloff A, Dudler P, Frydrychowicz A, Strecker C, Stroh AL, Geibel A, et al. Reliability of aortic MRI at 3 Tesla in patients with acute cryptogenic stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79(5): 540-6.
  32. von Engelhardt LV, Kraft CN, Pennekamp PH, Schild HH, Schmitz A, von Falkenhausen M. The evaluation of articular cartilage lesions of the knee with a 3-Tesla magnet. Arthroscopy 2007; 23(5): 496-502.
  33. von Engelhardt LV, Schmitz A, Pennekamp PH, Schild HH, Wirtz DC, von Falkenhausen F. Diagnostics of degenerative meniscal tears at 3-Tesla MRI compared to arthroscopy as reference standard. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128(5): 451-6.
  34. Kim SH, Lee JM, Lee MW, Kim GH, Han JK, Choi BI. Diagnostic accuracy of 3.0-Tesla rectal magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative local staging of primary rectal cancer. Invest Radiol 2008; 43(8): 587-93.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 29, Issue 142 - Serial Number 142
May and June 2011
Pages 733-743

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 April 2011
  • Revise Date: 05 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics