[Frontiers in Bioscience E4, 1731-1742, January 1, 2012]

Evaluation of unintended electrical stimulation from MR gradient fields

Howard I. Bassen1, Leonardo M. Angelone1

1Division of Physics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Methods
3.1 .SEMCAD simulations
3.2 .COMSOL simulations
3.3. Comparison to analytical solution and validation of model without lead
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1 .Modeling the magnetic field source in COMSOL and SEMCAD
5.2 .Modeling the distal tip, proximal tip, and stimulator pulse generator
5.3 .Modeling the lead insulation
5.4 .Effect of mesh size and reduced resolution on COMSOL simulations
5.5 .Computation of electric field at the tip of the simulated lead and comparison with experimental results
5.6 .Computational uncertainty
5.7 .Effect of the presence of a physical measuring probe
6. Conclusions
7. Acknowledgments
8. References

1. ABSTRACT

Exposure of patients with active implants (e.g. cardiac pacemakers and neurostimulators) to magnetic gradient fields (kHz range) during magnetic resonance imaging presents safety issues, such as unintended stimulation. Magnetically induced electric fields generate currents along the implant's lead, especially high at the distal tip. Experimental evaluation of the induced electric field was previously conducted. This study aimed to perform the same evaluation by means of computational methods, using two commercially available software packages (SemcadX and COMSOL Multiphysics). Electric field values were analyzed 1-3 mm from the distal tip. The effect of the two-electrode experimental probe was evaluated. The results were compared with previously published experimental data with reasonable agreement at locations more than 2-3 mm from the distal tip of the lead. The results were affected by the computational mesh size, with up to one order of magnitude difference for SEMCAD (resolution of 0.1 mm) compared to COMSOL (resolution of 0.5 mm). The results were also affected by the dimensions of the two-electrode probe, suggesting careful selection of the probe dimensions during experimental studies.