Why the study?
Multiple medical-device leads implanted adjacent to each other are often encountered clinically, but evaluating their safety in a 1.5T MRI scanner requires understanding coupling effects.
An experimentally determined coupled additive transfer function model can accurately estimate the MRI-induced heating of two implanted leads separated by a constant distance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change dual-lead MRI safety estimates; leaves open human validation of coupled additive transfer-function models.
PURPOSE: Multiple medical-device leads implanted next to each other are often encountered in clinical practice. The aim of this work is to study a coupled transfer function model to evaluate the safety of these coupled leads submitted to the RF field of a 1.5T MRI scanner for a constant distance between both leads. METHODS: The effect of coupling on the heating of 2 cables with different termination conditions is evaluated experimentally. The coupled and single transfer functions are determined experimentally and used to predict the relative temperature increases of both cables alone and coupled. Two different coupled models, an additive model and a global model, are proposed. The coupled transfer functions are also simulated. RESULTS: The coupling between cables has a strong influence on the resulting heating at the electrodes. The coupled additive transfer function model is a relevant tool to evaluate the heating of coupled leads separated by a constant distance. The global model underestimates the heating in one of the coupled cases by about 30%. The measured coupled transfer functions coincide with the simulated models. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to take into account the coupling effect between leads to evaluate the safety of implanted devices. This work shows that, in the case of 2 cables separated by a constant distance, that an experimentally determined coupled transfer function allows estimation of the heating of the 2 electrodes for a given incident field. Further work should take into account the in vivo varying distance between the 2 cables.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kabil et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: