Back

Ultralow-field portable MRI feasibility and safety in pediatric and neonatal ECMO: a single center year-long experience

Wallisch, J. S.; Finnsdottir Wagner, A.; Daniel, J. M.; Taber, A.; Sien, M.; Foster, S.; Artz, N.; Pineda, J. A.; Kochanek, P. M.; Chan, S. S.

2025-05-13 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2025.05.12.25327194 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) outcomes continue to improve, yet high rates of acute brain injury (ABI) threaten survival with significant morbidity for ECMO survivors. Currently available imaging modalities [ultrasound and computed tomography (CT)] have low early detection rates for hypoxic-ischemic and cerebrovascular injuries, delaying the diagnosis of ABI while on ECMO. CT sensitivity increases only when it may be too late to effectively intervene. High-field (>1.5 Tesla) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the gold standard to diagnose ischemic brain injury, is not compatible with ECMO. An FDA-cleared ultralow-field (0.064 Tesla) portable MRI (pMRI) has been studied in diverse types of ABI and with equipment that is typically not MRI compatible. There is very limited experience using pMRI in ECMO and even less in pediatric ECMO patients, therefore additional feasibility and safety data is needed in this cohort. MethodsThis single center, IRB approved study was conducted at a free-standing quaternary childrens hospital. All neonatal and pediatric patients cannulated onto ECMO were screened for eligibility. Subjects underwent bedside ultralow-field pMRI with Swoop (Hyperfine, Guilford, CT). Data on ECMO variables, time for patient positioning and scan, MRI sequences, concurrent critical care equipment, changes in ECMO flow and vital signs, and cannula displacement was collected. ResultsOver a 1-year period (Aug 2023-Aug 2024) 41 patients were screened. 16 out of 20 enrolled subjects had pMRI attempted and 13 (81.25%) received the full imaging protocol (T1, T2, FLAIR and DWI). The median staff members for pMRI positioning was 6 [5, 7] compared to 7 [7,7] for head CT (0.03). The median positioning and pMRI imaging time was 66 min [56, 70] compared to 75 min [70,79] for intrahospital transport for head CT. One subject had a [≥] 20% decrease in mean arterial pressure, however remained within the clinical goals without intervention. Unlike during head CT imaging acquisition, continuous renal replacement therapy was not interrupted during pMRI. ConclusionspMRI is safe and feasible in pediatric ECMO with no clinically relevant complications seen in our cohort. Resource utilization and delivery of concurrent critical care is superior for bedside imaging compared to intrahospital transport to CT. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT06074406 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06074406?term=NCT06074406Crank=1 CLINICAL PERSPECTIVEO_ST_ABSWhat is new?C_ST_ABSO_LIThis study expands the experience of ultralow-field portable MRI to pediatric ECMO patients. C_LIO_LIUltralow-field portable MRI is feasible and less resource-intense to perform on pediatric ECMO patients compared to intrahospital transport for head CT. C_LIO_LIPediatric ECMO patients tolerate bedside MRI without clinically significant changes in ECMO flows, perfusion, or oxygenation. C_LI What are the clinical implications?O_LIUltralow-field portable MRI can expand time-sensitive head imaging options for pediatric patients on ECMO with less interruptions of critical care therapies, decreased resource utilization, and eliminated risks of travel and radiation exposure. C_LIO_LITimely diagnosis of acute brain injury while on ECMO can prompt changes in neuromonitoring, anticoagulation management, and delivery of neuroprotective care with the intent to improve neurologic outcomes of pediatric ECMO survivors. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.2%
2
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 1%
12.8%
3
Neurocritical Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
5
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.2%
7
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
8
Pediatric Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
10
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.2%
11
Critical Care Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
12
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
15
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
16
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
18
Journal of Neurology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
19
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
23
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
The Journal of Pediatrics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
25
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
26
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Pediatric Neurology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
28
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%