Advertisement

Neurologic Imaging in Pregnancy

  • Jesse M. Thon
  • Robert Regenhardt
  • Joshua P. Klein
Chapter

Abstract

Selecting the appropriate neurologic imaging modality for evaluation of a pregnant patient is a common challenge faced by medical providers. It requires balancing the benefits of using the technique that provides the greatest diagnostic utility with the potential risks to the fetus which that technique may incur. This decision process is made more difficult by the lack of high quality human studies to date that have evaluated the safety of these different imaging methods. The aim of this chapter is to review the available literature on the most common neurologic imaging modalities and their use in pregnancy, in order to provide guidance on selection of the optimal imaging choice in different clinical situations.

Keywords

Neurologic imaging Pregnancy Imaging safety Fetal risk CT MRI Contrast 

References

  1. 1.
    Bove RM, Klein JP. Neuroradiology in women of childbearing age. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2014;20(1 Neurology of Pregnancy):23–41.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 299, September 2004 (replaces No. 158, September 1995). Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):647–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manual on Contrast Media v10.3 – American College of Radiology [Internet]. [cited 2017 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/Contrast-Manual.
  4. 4.
    Webb JAW, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Members of contrast media safety committee of european society of urogenital radiology (ESUR). The use of iodinated and gadolinium contrast media during pregnancy and lactation. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(6):1234–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the radiologist. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 546.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osei EK, Faulkner K. Fetal doses from radiological examinations. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(860):773–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wakeford R, Little MP. Risk coefficients for childhood cancer after intrauterine irradiation: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 2003;79(5):293–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamazaki JN, Schull WJ. Perinatal loss and neurological abnormalities among children of the atomic bomb. Nagasaki and Hiroshima revisited, 1949 to 1989. JAMA. 1990;264(5):605–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nelson JA, Livingston GK, Moon RG. Mutagenic evaluation of radiographic contrast media. Investig Radiol. 1982;17(2):183–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grüters A, Krude H. Detection and treatment of congenital hypothyroidism. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;8(2):104–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klingebiel R, Kentenich M, Bauknecht H-C, Masuhr F, Siebert E, Busch M, et al. Comparative evaluation of 64-slice CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography in assessing the cervicocranial vasculature. Vasc Health Risk Manag. Dove Press. 2008;4(4):901–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manninen A-L, Isokangas J-M, Karttunen A, Siniluoto T, Nieminen MTA. Comparison of radiation exposure between diagnostic CTA and DSA examinations of cerebral and cervicocerebral vessels. Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(11):2038–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moon EK, Wang W, Newman JS, Bayona-Molano MDP. Challenges in interventional radiology: the pregnant patient. Semin Interv Radiol. Thieme Medical Publishers. 2013;30(4):394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grzyska U, Freitag J, Zeumer H. Selective cerebral intraarterial DSA. Complication rate and control of risk factors. Neuroradiology. 1990;32(4):296–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hartwig V, Giovannetti G, Vanello N, Lombardi M, Landini L, Simi S. Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). 2009;6(6):1778–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanal E, Shellock FG, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;176(3):593–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen MM, Coakley FV, Kaimal A, Laros RK. Guidelines for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging use during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(2 Pt 1):333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Borgstede JP, Bradley WG, Froelich JW, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(3):501–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee opinion No. 723: guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):e210–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A, Montanera WJ, Park AL. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316(9):952–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prola-Netto J, Woods M, Roberts VHJ, Sullivan EL, Miller CA, Frias AE, et al. Gadolinium chelate safety in pregnancy: barely detectable gadolinium levels in the juvenile nonhuman primate after in utero exposure. Radiology. 2017;286:162534.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marcos HB, Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S. Normal placenta: gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):493–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanaka YO, Sohda S, Shigemitsu S, Niitsu M, Itai Y. High temporal resolution dynamic contrast MRI in a high risk group for placenta accreta. Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;19(5):635–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sundgren PC, Leander P. Is administration of gadolinium-based contrast media to pregnant women and small children justified? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(4):750–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fraum TJ, Ludwig DR, Bashir MR, Fowler KJ. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: a comprehensive risk assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(2):338–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Santis M, Straface G, Cavaliere AF, Carducci B, Caruso A. Gadolinium periconceptional exposure: pregnancy and neonatal outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(1):99–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesse M. Thon
    • 1
  • Robert Regenhardt
    • 2
  • Joshua P. Klein
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Partners Neurology Residency ProgramBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations