The average specific absorption rate for patients evaluated using a 3 Tesla MRI machine was significantly lower at 0.92 W/kg compared to 2.45 W/kg for those evaluated using a 1.5 Tesla MRI machine.
Observational (n=2,582)
No
Does 3 Tesla MRI reduce Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compared to 1.5 Tesla MRI in patients undergoing MRI examinations?
3 Tesla MRI is associated with a significantly lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compared to 1.5 Tesla MRI across various anatomical regions and patient weights, enhancing patient safety regarding radiofrequency heating.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 0.92% vs 2.45%
valor p: p=<0.001
Background: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is radiofrequency power delivered to tissue duringa Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examination, expressed as watts per kg (W/kg). Radiofrequencypower deposition results in increased heating of patient tissues; thus, the use of MRI has to becontrolled to ensure patient safety. Objective: The study aimed to evaluate SAR among patients using the 3 Tesla MRI (MRI 3T) and 1.5Tesla MRI (MRI 1.5T) machines. Methods: Data were obtained from patients who were examined using MRI 3T (1,159 patients, 8,225series) and MRI 1.5T (1,423 patients, 8,605 series) machines. Age, body weight, SAR, repetition time(TR), type of radiofrequency (RF) pulse and anatomical region exposed were studied. Results: Average SAR for all patients using the MRI 3T was lower than that of the MR 1.5T in everypart (p 75 degrees, 0.77 W/Kg and 0.94W/Kg, accordingly (p < 0.001) similar to the MRI 1.5T. Conclusion: The average SAR of patients evaluated using the MRI 3T was lower than those of patientsevaluated using the MRI 1.5T in every body part examined. SAR was lower when the TR was increasedand flip angle was decreased.
Saengruang-Orn et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in Patients undergoing MRI (n=2,582). 3 Tesla MRI vs. 1.5 Tesla MRI was evaluated on Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in W/kg (p=<0.001). The average specific absorption rate for patients evaluated using a 3 Tesla MRI machine was significantly lower at 0.92 W/kg compared to 2.45 W/kg for those evaluated using a 1.5 Tesla MRI machine.