Comparative Study of RF Heating in Deep Brain Stimulation Devices During MRI at 1.5 T and 0.55 T: Challenging the Assumption of Safety at Low Field Strengths

TL;DR

This study compares RF heating in deep brain stimulation implants during MRI at 0.55 T and 1.5 T, revealing that low-field MRI may not always be safer, especially with longer implants, due to complex resonance effects.

Contribution

It provides a detailed analysis of RF heating risks at different MRI field strengths, challenging the assumption that low-field MRI is inherently safer for implants.

Findings

RF heating is lower for lead-only configurations at 0.55 T compared to 1.5 T.

Full DBS systems can experience similar or higher RF heating at 0.55 T than at 1.5 T.

Longer implants may resonate at low-field frequencies, increasing tissue damage risk.

Abstract

Purpose: Low-field MRI has been assumed to be implant-friendly based on limited studies. However, RF-induced heating due to an implant is a complex resonance phenomenon, highly dependent on the implant's configurations and the applied RF frequencies. This study aims to evaluate the RF heating of DBS implants during MRI at low-field strengths compared to higher field 1.5 T MRI. Methods: A commercial deep brain stimulation (DBS) implant was used in full system as well as lead only configurations to evaluate and compare RF heating during MR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T. The transfer function of the device at both configurations was measured and validated at each of the frequencies, which was then used for the in vivo prediction of RF heating for realistic DBS configurations at head, chest and abdomen imaging landmarks. Results: For the lead only case, the RF heating due to the DBS was substantially smaller during imaging at 0.55 T compared to that at 1.5 T. However, for the full DBS system (longer implant), the RF heating at 0.55 T was comparable to and for some cases even higher than that at 1.5 T, reaching a level that poses risk of tissue damage in patients. Conclusions: While RF heating generally tends to be lower at low-field MRI, the case with longer implanted leads demands extra caution, due to the higher possibility of matching resonant condition at low-field-strength frequencies. Thus, specific risk evaluation for each implant and configuration is required rather than assuming that lower field strength imaging is safer.