ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013.
University of Pittsburgh1, University of California, San Francisco2, University of Colorado Denver3, University of California, San Diego4, University of Minnesota5, University of Michigan6, Durham University7, Purdue University8, GE Healthcare9, Yale University10, Cleveland Clinic11, Food and Drug Administration12, American College of Radiology13
01 Mar 2013-Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company)-Vol. 37, Iss: 3, pp 501-530
TL;DR: The ACR MR Safe Practices Guidelines established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments and as the MR industry changes the document is reviewed, modified and updated.
Abstract: Because there are many potential risks in the MR environment and reports of adverse incidents involving patients, equipment and personnel, the need for a guidance document on MR safe practices emerged. Initially published in 2002, the ACR MR Safe Practices Guidelines established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments. As the MR industry changes the document is reviewed, modified and updated. The most recent version will reflect these changes.
Citations
More filters
Houston Methodist Hospital1, Duke University2, Northwestern University3, Mayo Clinic4, University of California, San Francisco5, Baylor University Medical Center6, Columbia University Medical Center7, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania8, Harvard University9, University of Chicago10, Brigham and Women's Hospital11, University Health Network12, MedStar Health13
TL;DR: William A. Zoghbi, MD, FASE (Chair), David Adams, RCS, RDCS, Fase, Robert O. Bonow,MD, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MDs, Elyse Foster, Md, Fases, Paul A. Grayburn, MD-FASE, Rebecca T. Hahn,MD-MMSc, Yuchi Han, PhD, MMSc,* Judy Hung, MD.
Abstract: William A. Zoghbi, MD, FASE (Chair), David Adams, RCS, RDCS, FASE, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Elyse Foster, MD, FASE, Paul A. Grayburn, MD, FASE, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, FASE, Yuchi Han, MD, MMSc,* Judy Hung, MD, FASE, Roberto M. Lang, MD, FASE, Stephen H. Little, MD, FASE, Dipan J. Shah, MD, MMSc,* Stanton Shernan, MD, FASE, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, MSc, FASE,* James D. Thomas, MD, FASE, and Neil J. Weissman, MD, FASE, Houston and Dallas, Texas; Durham, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Rochester, Minnesota; San Francisco, California; New York, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Boston, Massachusetts; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Washington, DC
2,030 citations
Seoul National University1, Hammersmith Hospital2, Kindai University3, University of Copenhagen4, University of Bologna5, University of Calgary6, Northeast Ohio Medical University7, University of São Paulo8, Jaslok Hospital9, Peking Union Medical College10, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich11, University of Paris12, Fudan University13, Thomas Jefferson University14, University of Michigan15, University of Melbourne16, Institut Gustave Roussy17, Imperial College London18, University of California, San Diego19, Tokyo Medical University20, Tongji University21
TL;DR: These liver CEUS guidelines and recommendations are intended to create standard protocols for the use and administration of UCA in liver applications on an international basis and improve the management of patients worldwide.
Abstract: Initially, a set of guidelines for the use of ultrasound contrast agents was published in 2004 dealing only with liver applications. A second edition of the guidelines in 2008 reflected changes in the available contrast agents and updated the guidelines for the liver, as well as implementing some non-liver applications. Time has moved on, and the need for international guidelines on the use of CEUS in the liver has become apparent. The present document describes the third iteration of recommendations for the hepatic use of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using contrast specific imaging techniques. This joint WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative has implicated experts from major leading ultrasound societies worldwide. These liver CEUS guidelines are simultaneously published in the official journals of both organizing federations (i.e., Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology for WFUMB and Ultraschall in der Medizin/European Journal of Ultrasound for EFSUMB). These guidelines and recommendations provide general advice on the use of all currently clinically available ultrasound contrast agents (UCA). They are intended to create standard protocols for the use and administration of UCA in liver applications on an international basis and improve the management of patients worldwide.
1,042 citations
University of Warwick1, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital2, McGill University3, Forschungszentrum Jülich4, University of Düsseldorf5, Concordia University6, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg7, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit8, MIND Institute9, Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research10, Stanford University11, University of California, Berkeley12, French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation13, Washington University in St. Louis14, Erasmus University Medical Center15, National University of Singapore16
TL;DR: Intentions from developing a set of recommendations on behalf of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping are described and barriers that impede these practices are identified, including how the discipline must change to fully exploit the potential of the world's neuroimaging data.
Abstract: Given concerns about the reproducibility of scientific findings, neuroimaging must define best practices for data analysis, results reporting, and algorithm and data sharing to promote transparency, reliability and collaboration. We describe insights from developing a set of recommendations on behalf of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping and identify barriers that impede these practices, including how the discipline must change to fully exploit the potential of the world's neuroimaging data.
544 citations
TL;DR: The 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain this paper provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain.
402 citations
TL;DR: The review concludes by examining future prospects for transdermal patches and drug delivery systems, such as the combination of active delivery systems with patches, minimally invasive microneedle patches and cutaneous solutions, including metered‐dose systems.
Abstract: Transdermal patches are now widely used as cosmetic, topical and transdermal delivery systems. These patches represent a key outcome from the growth in skin science, technology and expertise developed through trial and error, clinical observation and evidence-based studies that date back to the first existing human records. This review begins with the earliest topical therapies and traces topical delivery to the present-day transdermal patches, describing along the way the initial trials, devices and drug delivery systems that underpin current transdermal patches and their actives. This is followed by consideration of the evolution in the various patch designs and their limitations as well as requirements for actives to be used for transdermal delivery. The properties of and issues associated with the use of currently marketed products, such as variability, safety and regulatory aspects, are then described. The review concludes by examining future prospects for transdermal patches and drug delivery systems, such as the combination of active delivery systems with patches, minimally invasive microneedle patches and cutaneous solutions, including metered-dose systems.
331 citations
Cites background from "ACR guidance document on MR safe pr..."
...Consequently, safe practice recommendations have been issued and the temporary removal of the transdermal system before such procedures may be the safest approach (FDA, 2009a; Kanal et al., 2013)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: Kanal and Weinreb as discussed by the authors provide research support for GE Healthcare, Medtronic, and Biotronik, as well as a speaker's bureau of GE Healthcare.
Abstract: E. Kanal is a consultant for, is a member of the speakers bureau of, and provides research support for Bracco Diagnostics and GE Healthcare; is a member of the speakers bureau of and provides research support for Siemens Medical Solutions; and provides research support for Berlex and Medtronic. T. Gilk is a consultant for Mednovus, Inc. J. R. Gimbel provides research support for St. Jude Medical, Medtronic, and Biotronik. J. Nyenhuis is a consultant for and provides research support to Medtronics. J. Weinreb is a consultant and member of the speakers bureau for GE Healthcare.
674 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: E. Kanal is a consultant for, is a members of the speakers bureau of, and provides research support for Bracco Diagnostics and GE Healthcare; is a member of the speaker bureau of and provides Research support for Siemens Medical Solutions; and providesResearch support for Berlex and Medtronic.
632 citations
TL;DR: The unwanted radiofrequency (RF) heating of an endovascular guidewire frequently used in interventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was examined, which can only be explained by resonating RF waves.
Abstract: We examined the unwanted radiofrequency (RF) heating of an endovascular guidewire frequently used in interventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A Terumo guidewire was partly immersed in an oblong saline bath to simulate an endovascular intervention. The temperature rise of the guidewire tip during an FFE sequence [average specific absorption rate (SAR) = 3.9 W/kg] was measured with a Luxtron fluoroscopic fiber. Starting from 26 degrees C, the guidewire tip reached temperatures up to 74 degrees C after 30 seconds of scanning. Touching the guidewire may cause sudden heating at the point of contact, which in one instance caused a skin burn. The excessive heating of a linear conductor like the guidewire can only be explained by resonating RF waves. The capricious dependencies of this resonance phenomenon on environmental factors have severe consequences for predictability and safety guidelines.
356 citations
"ACR guidance document on MR safe pr..." refers background in this paper
...The injuries in these instances resulted from heating of the electrode tips (19,20)....
[...]
TL;DR: These MR Safe Practices Guidelines have been developed to help guide MR practitioners regarding these issues and provide a basis for them to develop and implement their own MR policies and practices and will be helpful as the field of MR evolves and matures.
Abstract: he following is a report of the American College of Radiology Blue Ribbon Panel on MR Safety, chaired by Emanuel Kanal, MD, FACR, to the Task Force on Patient Safety, chaired by James P. Borgstede, MD, FACR. Under the auspices of the Task Force, the panel met in November 2001 consisting of the following members: A. James Barkovich, MD; Charlotte Bell, MD, (Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation); James P. Borgstede, MD, FACR; William G. Bradley, MD, PhD, FACR; Joel Felmlee, PhD; Jerry W. Froelich, MD; Ellisa M. Kaminski, RTR, MR; Emanuel Kanal, MD, FACR; Elaine K. Keeler, PhD, (NEMA); James W. Lester, MD; Elizabeth Scoumis, RN, BSN; Loren A. Zaremba, PhD (FDA); and Marie D. Zinninger (American College of Radiology Staff). The following document is intended to be used as a template for MR facilities to follow in the development of an MR safety program. Recent articles in the medical literature and electronic/print media [1, 2] detailing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) adverse incidents involving patients, equipment, and personnel spotlighted the need for review. The Panel was charged with reviewing MR safety practices and guidelines and issuing new ones as appropriate for MR examinations and practices today [3–7]. The document restates existing practices and articulates new ones. This document will continue to evolve, as does the MRI field. There are potential risks in the MR environment, not only for the patient but also for the accompanying family members, attending health care professionals, and others who find themselves only occasionally or rarely in the magnetic fields of MR scanners, such as security or housekeeping personnel, firefighters, police, etc. These MR Safe Practices Guidelines have been developed to help guide MR practitioners regarding these issues and provide a basis for them to develop and implement their own MR policies and practices. It is intended that these MR Safe Practice Guidelines (and the policies and procedures to which they give rise) be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. It is the intent of the American College of Radiology (ACR) that these MR Safe Practice Guidelines will be helpful as the field of MR evolves and matures, providing patient MR services that are among the most powerful, yet safest, of all diagnostic procedures to be developed in the history of modern medicine.
269 citations
TL;DR: The following are policies, guidelines, and recommendations from the Safety Committee of the Society for Magnetic Resonance Imaging concerning various issues related to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging safety and patient management.
Abstract: The following are policies, guidelines, and recommendations from the Safety Committee of the Society for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (SMRI) concerning various issues related to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging safety and patient management. These policies, guidelines, and recommendations were developed to provide standardized and consistent information for use by health practitioners involved in clinical MR imaging.
249 citations