Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2017; 37(06): 712-723
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1608939
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Neuroimaging in Pregnant Women

Thanissara Chansakul
1   Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Geoffrey S. Young
1   Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Choosing the most appropriate diagnostic neuroimaging study for a pregnant woman involves assessing the pretest likelihood of serious treatable neurologic disease, the diagnostic utility of various available computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) modalities, and the risks of each. Of these three elements—pretest differential diagnosis, utility of MRI and CT, and risks of MR and CT—the risk component is perhaps the least well understood by most physicians. We provide a basic review of the intrinsic risks of MRI and CT, particularly radiation biology and radiation safety, as well as the risks pertaining to the use of contrast agents, to reduce provider confusion and anxiety and improve quality, safety, and efficiency of neuroimaging diagnosis in pregnant patients. We believe that a better understanding of the associated very low risks with mother and fetus will reassure the reader that CT remains the most appropriate tool for initial rapid diagnosis of acute neurological conditions in pregnancy and that in urgent situations CT should not be withheld or delayed due to exaggerated concern about radiation. Noncontrast MRI, while not without risk, is generally considered safe in pregnancy, as no evidence of fetal adverse effects has been demonstrated to date. Iodinated CT contrast agents are likely safer than gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents because of gadolinium accumulation in the amniotic fluid and fetal tissue, although no harmful effects of tissue gadolinium accumulation are known. In most but not all pregnant patients presenting with a new or worsening neurological abnormality, the risks intrinsic to the disease will outweigh the risks of imaging. In an individual patient, the pretest probability of serious treatable disease and acuity of presentation will usually suggest an optimal imaging strategy and choice of test. This optimal strategy will also depend on the immediate availability and level of sophistication of the scanners, software, technologists, and radiologists. As such, the standard of care for imaging in pregnancy requires direct consultation between the referring clinician and radiologist to determine the most appropriate strategy and brief documentation of the resulting consensus risk–benefit assessment.

Keywords

pregnancy - risk–benefit analysis - imaging - radiation biology - radiation safety - contrast agent safety - MRI safety
 

  • References

  • 1 Biology R. Radiation biology. In: Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt Jr EM, Boone JM. , eds. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2011: 751-836
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Averbeck D. Does scientific evidence support a change from the LNT model for low-dose radiation risk extrapolation?. Health Phys 2009; 97 (05) 493-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 2009; 251 (01) 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lall R, Ganapathy S, Yang M. , et al. Low-dose radiation exposure induces a HIF-1-mediated adaptive and protective metabolic response. Cell Death Differ 2014; 21 (05) 836-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Spitz DR, Azzam EI, Li JJ, Gius D. Metabolic oxidation/reduction reactions and cellular responses to ionizing radiation: a unifying concept in stress response biology. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2004; 23 (3-4): 311-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Klammer H, Kadhim M, Iliakis G. Evidence of an adaptive response targeting DNA nonhomologous end joining and its transmission to bystander cells. Cancer Res 2010; 70 (21) 8498-8506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Buonanno M, Randers-Pehrson G, Smilenov LB. , et al. A Mouse Ear Model for Bystander Studies Induced by Microbeam Irradiation. Radiat Res 2015; 184 (02) 219-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Woodbine L, Gennery AR, Jeggo PA. The clinical impact of deficiency in DNA non-homologous end-joining. DNA Repair (Amst) 2014; 16: 84-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients' skin and hair. Radiology 2010; 254 (02) 326-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Imanishi Y, Fukui A, Niimi H. , et al. Radiation-induced temporary hair loss as a radiation damage only occurring in patients who had the combination of MDCT and DSA. Eur Radiol 2005; 15 (01) 41-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 1, characteristics of radiation injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177 (01) 3-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Koenig TR, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 2, review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177 (01) 13-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wintermark M, Lev MH. FDA investigates the safety of brain perfusion CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31 (01) 2-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cohnen M, Wittsack HJ, Assadi S. , et al. Radiation exposure of patients in comprehensive computed tomography of the head in acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27 (08) 1741-1745
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mnyusiwalla A, Aviv RI, Symons SP. Radiation dose from multidetector row CT imaging for acute stroke. Neuroradiology 2009; 51 (10) 635-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nawfel RD, Young GS. Measured head CT/CTA skin dose and intensive care unit patient cumulative exposure. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017; 38 (03) 455-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Neriishi K, Nakashima E, Minamoto A. , et al. Postoperative cataract cases among atomic bomb survivors: radiation dose response and threshold. Radiat Res 2007; 168 (04) 404-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Seals KF, Lee EW, Cagnon CH, Al-Hakim RA, Kee ST. Radiation-Induced Cataractogenesis: A Critical Literature Review for the Interventional Radiologist. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016; 39 (02) 151-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M. , et al; Authors on behalf of ICRP. ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs–threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 2012; 41 (1-2): 1-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Worgul BV, Kundiyev YI, Sergiyenko NM. , et al. Cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers: implications regarding permissible eye exposures. Radiat Res 2007; 167 (02) 233-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M. , et al. Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168 (06) 620-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ciraj-Bjelac O, Rehani M, Minamoto A, Sim KH, Liew HB, Vano E. Radiation-induced eye lens changes and risk for cataract in interventional cardiology. Cardiology 2012; 123 (03) 168-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Worgul BV, Smilenov L, Brenner DJ, Junk A, Zhou W, Hall EJ. Atm heterozygous mice are more sensitive to radiation-induced cataracts than are their wild-type counterparts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99 (15) 9836-9839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ainsbury EA, Bouffler SD, Dörr W. , et al. Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies. Radiat Res 2009; 172 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Linos A, Gray JE, Orvis AL, Kyle RA, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Low-dose radiation and leukemia. N Engl J Med 1980; 302 (20) 1101-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Boice Jr JD, Morin MM, Glass AG. , et al. Diagnostic x-ray procedures and risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. JAMA 1991; 265 (10) 1290-1294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kleinerman RA. Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36 (Suppl. 02) 121-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Boice Jr JD, Preston D, Davis FG, Monson RR. Frequent chest X-ray fluoroscopy and breast cancer incidence among tuberculosis patients in Massachusetts. Radiat Res 1991; 125 (02) 214-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Miller AB, Howe GR, Sherman GJ. , et al. Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis. N Engl J Med 1989; 321 (19) 1285-1289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Doody MM, Lonstein JE, Stovall M, Hacker DG, Luckyanov N, Land CE. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine 2000; 25 (16) 2052-2063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP. , et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (22) 2071-2077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R. , et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (22) 2078-2086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kadhim MA, Hill MA, Moore SR. Genomic instability and the role of radiation quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2006; 122 (1-4): 221-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Okada M, Okabe A, Uchihori Y. , et al. Single extreme low dose/low dose rate irradiation causes alteration in lifespan and genome instability in primary human cells. Br J Cancer 2007; 96 (11) 1707-1710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Scott BR. Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model. Hum Exp Toxicol 2008; 27 (02) 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Biological effects of radiation. 2015. Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html . Accessed March 21, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mettler Jr FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008; 248 (01) 254-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD. , et al. Radiation exposure and pregnancy: when should we be concerned?. Radiographics 2007; 27 (04) 909-917 , discussion 917–918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 ACR-SPR practice parameter for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant adolescents and women with ionizing radiation. American College of Radiology (ACR) website. www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/Pregnant_Patients.pdf?la=en . Accessed March 22, 2017
    PubMed
  • 40 Brent RL. Saving lives and changing family histories: appropriate counseling of pregnant women and men and women of reproductive age, concerning the risk of diagnostic radiation exposures during and before pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (01) 4-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Patel SJ, Reede DL, Katz DS, Subramaniam R, Amorosa JK. Imaging the pregnant patient for nonobstetric conditions: algorithms and radiation dose considerations. Radiographics 2007; 27 (06) 1705-1722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Doll R, Wakeford R. Risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 130-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Delongchamp RR, Mabuchi K, Yoshimoto Y, Preston DL. Cancer mortality among atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children, October 1950-May 1992. Radiat Res 1997; 147 (03) 385-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 American College of Radiology Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR Manual on Contrast Media, version 10.2.2016. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/Contrast-Manual . Accessed March 21, 2017
    PubMed
  • 45 Newhouse JH, Kho D, Rao QA, Starren J. Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191 (02) 376-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Adusumilli S, Dunnick NR. Frequency, management, and outcome of extravasation of nonionic iodinated contrast medium in 69,657 intravenous injections. Radiology 2007; 243 (01) 80-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW. Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176 (06) 1385-1388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Mortelé KJ, Oliva MR, Ondategui S, Ros PR, Silverman SG. Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184 (01) 31-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Caoili EM, Wang G, Francis IR. Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191 (02) 409-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990; 175 (03) 621-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Dean PB. Fetal uptake of an intravascular radiologic contrast medium. RoFo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 1977; 127 (03) 267-270
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Moon AJ, Katzberg RW, Sherman MP. Transplacental passage of iohexol. J Pediatr 2000; 136 (04) 548-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Atwell TD, Lteif AN, Brown DL, McCann M, Townsend JE, Leroy AJ. Neonatal thyroid function after administration of IV iodinated contrast agent to 21 pregnant patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191 (01) 268-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Bourjeily G, Chalhoub M, Phornphutkul C, Alleyne TC, Woodfield CA, Chen KK. Neonatal thyroid function: effect of a single exposure to iodinated contrast medium in utero. Radiology 2010; 256 (03) 744-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Rajaram S, Exley CE, Fairlie F, Matthews S. Effect of antenatal iodinated contrast agent on neonatal thyroid function. Br J Radiol 2012; 85 (1015): e238-e242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Panych LP, Madore B. The physics of MRI safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; ; [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25761.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Magnetic resonance imaging: advanced image acquisition methods, artifacts, spectroscopy, quality control, siting, bioeffects, and safety. In: Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt Jr EM, Boone JM. , eds. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Schenck JF. Safety of strong, static magnetic fields. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12 (01) 2-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A, Montanera WJ, Park AL. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA 2016; 316 (09) 952-961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Poutamo J, Partanen K, Vanninen R, Vainio P, Kirkinen P. MRI does not change fetal cardiotocographic parameters. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18 (11) 1149-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Myers C, Duncan KR, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 1998; 71 (845) 549-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, Gowland PA, Mansfield P. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170 (1 Pt 1): 32-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Roberts DC, Marcelli V, Gillen JS, Carey JP, Della Santina CC, Zee DS. MRI magnetic field stimulates rotational sensors of the brain. Curr Biol 2011; 21 (19) 1635-1640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: a hazard for the fetus and newborn. Pediatrics 1997; 100 (04) 724-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM. Fetal hearing: characterization of the stimulus and response. Semin Perinatol 1996; 20 (01) 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 McJury M, Shellock FG. Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12 (01) 37-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Ruckhäberle E, Nekolla SG, Ganter C. , et al. In vivo intrauterine sound pressure and temperature measurements during magnetic resonance imaging (1.5 T) in pregnant ewes. Fetal Diagn Ther 2008; 24 (03) 203-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Strizek B, Jani JC, Mucyo E. , et al. Safety of MR imaging at 1.5 T in fetuses: a retrospective case-control study of birth weights and the effects of acoustic noise. Radiology 2015; 275 (02) 530-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 De Wilde JP, Rivers AW, Price DL. A review of the current use of magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy and safety implications for the fetus. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2005; 87 (2-3): 335-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Vijayalaxmi FM, Fatahi M, Speck O. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a review of genetic damage investigations. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res 2015; 764: 51-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Fiechter M, Stehli J, Fuchs TA, Dougoud S, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA. Impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on human lymphocyte DNA integrity. Eur Heart J 2013; 34 (30) 2340-2345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Knuuti J, Saraste A, Kallio M, Minn H. Is cardiac magnetic resonance imaging causing DNA damage?. Eur Heart J 2013; 34 (30) 2337-2339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Brand M, Ellmann S, Sommer M. , et al. Influence of Cardiac MR Imaging on DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Human Blood Lymphocytes. Radiology 2015; 277 (02) 406-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Edwards MJ, Saunders RD, Shiota K. Effects of heat on embryos and foetuses. Int J Hyperthermia 2003; 19 (03) 295-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Hand JW, Li Y, Thomas EL, Rutherford MA, Hajnal JV. Prediction of specific absorption rate in mother and fetus associated with MRI examinations during pregnancy. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55 (04) 883-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Gowland PA, De Wilde J. Temperature increase in the fetus due to radio frequency exposure during magnetic resonance scanning. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53 (21) L15-L18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Cannie MM, De Keyzer F, Van Laere S. , et al. Potential heating effect in the gravid uterus by using 3-T MR imaging protocols: experimental study in miniature pigs. Radiology 2016; 279 (03) 754-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Expert Panel on MR Safety: Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C. , et al; Expert Panel on MR Safety. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37 (03) 501-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K. , et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17 (09) 2359-2362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Broome DR, Girguis MS, Baron PW, Cottrell AC, Kjellin I, Kirk GA. Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188 (02) 586-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR. , et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology 2007; 243 (01) 148-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Shabana WM, Cohan RH, Ellis JH. , et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a report of 29 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (03) 736-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Wertman R, Altun E, Martin DR. , et al. Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: evaluation of gadolinium chelate contrast agents at four American universities. Radiology 2008; 248 (03) 799-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Collidge TA, Thomson PC, Mark PB. , et al. Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: retrospective study of a renal replacement therapy cohort. Radiology 2007; 245 (01) 168-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Kallen AJ, Jhung MA, Cheng S. , et al. Gadolinium-containing magnetic resonance imaging contrast and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a case-control study. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 51 (06) 966-975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Abraham JL, Thakral C, Skov L, Rossen K, Marckmann P. Dermal inorganic gadolinium concentrations: evidence for in vivo transmetallation and long-term persistence in nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Br J Dermatol 2008; 158 (02) 273-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Rosenkranz AR, Grobner T, Mayer GJ. Conventional or Gadolinium containing contrast media: the choice between acute renal failure or Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis?. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2007; 119 (9-10): 271-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Nandwana SB, Moreno CC, Osipow MT, Sekhar A, Cox KL. Gadobenate dimeglumine administration and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: is there a real risk in patients with impaired renal function?. Radiology 2015; 276 (03) 741-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Soulez G, Bloomgarden DC, Rofsky NM. , et al. Prospective cohort study of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease undergoing MRI with injected gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoteridol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205 (03) 469-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Bruce R, Wentland AL, Haemel AK. , et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis using gadobenate dimeglumine in 1423 patients with renal insufficiency compared with gadodiamide. Invest Radiol 2016; 51 (11) 701-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Altun E, Martin DR, Wertman R, Lugo-Somolinos A, Fuller III ER, Semelka RC. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: change in incidence following a switch in gadolinium agents and adoption of a gadolinium policy--report from two U.S. universities. Radiology 2009; 253 (03) 689-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Soyer P, Dohan A, Patkar D, Gottschalk A. Observational study on the safety profile of gadoterate meglumine in 35,499 patients: The SECURE study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45 (04) 988-997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 2014; 270 (03) 834-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Kanal E, Tweedle MF. Residual or retained gadolinium: practical implications for radiologists and our patients. Radiology 2015; 275 (03) 630-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF. , et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015; 275 (03) 772-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Quattrocchi CC, Mallio CA, Errante Y, Beomonte Zobel B. High T1 signal intensity in dentate nucleus after multiple injections of linear gadolinium chelates. Radiology 2015; 276 (02) 616-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M. , et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015; 276 (01) 228-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Stojanov DA, Aracki-Trenkic A, Vojinovic S, Benedeto-Stojanov D, Ljubisavljevic S. Increasing signal intensity within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1W magnetic resonance images in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: correlation with cumulative dose of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent, gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 2016; 26 (03) 807-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Roberts DR, Holden KR. Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in the pediatric brain exposed to multiple doses of gadolinium contrast. Brain Dev 2016; 38 (03) 331-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ. , et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 2015; 275 (03) 783-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Cao Y, Huang DQ, Shih G, Prince MR. Signal change in the dentate nucleus on T1-weighted MR images after multiple administrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206 (02) 414-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Olchowy C, Cebulski K, Łasecki M. , et al. The presence of the gadolinium-based contrast agent depositions in the brain and symptoms of gadolinium neurotoxicity - A systematic review. PLoS One 2017; 12 (02) e0171704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Lohrke J, Frisk AL, Frenzel T. , et al. Histology and gadolinium distribution in the rodent brain after the administration of cumulative high doses of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2017; 52 (06) 324-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Panigel M, Wolf G, Zeleznick A. Magnetic resonance imaging of the placenta in rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta. J Med Primatol 1988; 17 (01) 3-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Oh KY, Roberts VH, Schabel MC, Grove KL, Woods M, Frias AE. Gadolinium Chelate Contrast Material in Pregnancy: Fetal Biodistribution in the Nonhuman Primate. Radiology 2015; 276 (01) 110-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 De Santis M, Straface G, Cavaliere AF, Carducci B, Caruso A. Gadolinium periconceptional exposure: pregnancy and neonatal outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86 (01) 99-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Wang PI, Chong ST, Kielar AZ. , et al. Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 1, evidence-based review and recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198 (04) 778-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Rofsky NM, Weinreb JC, Litt AW. Quantitative analysis of gadopentetate dimeglumine excreted in breast milk. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993; 3 (01) 131-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Kubik-Huch RA, Gottstein-Aalame NM, Frenzel T. , et al. Gadopentetate dimeglumine excretion into human breast milk during lactation. Radiology 2000; 216 (02) 555-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Lin SP, Brown JJ. MR contrast agents: physical and pharmacologic basics. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25 (05) 884-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar