Preparing children with a mock scanner training protocol results in high quality structural and functional MRI scans

Henrica M A de Bie, Maria Boersma, Mike P Wattjes, Sofie Adriaanse, R Jeroen Vermeulen, Kim J Oostrom, Jaap Huisman, Dick J Veltman, Henriette A Delemarre-Van de Waal, Henrica M A de Bie, Maria Boersma, Mike P Wattjes, Sofie Adriaanse, R Jeroen Vermeulen, Kim J Oostrom, Jaap Huisman, Dick J Veltman, Henriette A Delemarre-Van de Waal

Abstract

We evaluated the use of a mock scanner training protocol as an alternative for sedation and for preparing young children for (functional) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Children with severe mental retardation or developmental disorders were excluded. A group of 90 children (median age 6.5 years, range 3.65-14.5 years) participated in this study. Children were referred to the actual MRI investigation only when they passed the training. We assessed the pass rate of the mock scanner training sessions. In addition, the quality of both structural and functional MRI (fMRI) scans was rated on a semi-quantitative scale. The overall pass rate of the mock scanner training sessions was 85/90. Structural scans of diagnostic quality were obtained in 81/90 children, and fMRI scans with sufficient quality for further analysis were obtained in 30/43 of the children. Even in children under 7 years of age, who are generally sedated, the success rate of structural scans with diagnostic quality was 53/60. FMRI scans with sufficient quality were obtained in 23/36 of the children in this younger age group. The association between age and proportion of children with fMRI scans of sufficient quality was not statistically significant. We conclude that a mock MRI scanner training protocol can be useful to prepare children for a diagnostic MRI scan. It may reduce the need for sedation in young children undergoing MRI. Our protocol is also effective in preparing young children to participate in fMRI investigations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mock scanner unit at the pediatric outpatient department
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Transverse sections of T2-weighted MR images through the supratentorial brain demonstrating different degrees of movement artifacts according to our rating scale. 1: no motion artifacts, excellent quality, 2: little motion artifacts (arrows), good quality, 3: moderate motion artifacts, acceptable quality, and 4: excessive motion artifacts, poor quality
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Quality of structural MRI scans grouped by age in 90 children
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Quality of functional MRI scans grouped by age in 43 children

References

    1. Bluemke DA, Breiter SN. Sedation procedures in MR imaging: safety, effectiveness, and nursing effect on examinations. Radiology. 2000;216:645–652.
    1. Byars AW, Holland SK, Strawsburg RH, et al. Practical aspects of conducting large-scale functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in children. J Child Neurol. 2002;17:885–890. doi: 10.1177/08830738020170122201.
    1. Cote CJ, Karl HW, Notterman DA, et al. Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: analysis of medications used for sedation. Pediatrics. 2000;106:633–644. doi: 10.1542/peds.106.4.633.
    1. Cote CJ, Notterman DA, Karl HW, et al. Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: a critical incident analysis of contributing factors. Pediatrics. 2000;105:805–814. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.4.805.
    1. Cote CJ, Wilson S. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update. Pediatrics. 2006;118:2587–2602. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2780.
    1. Cravero JP, Beach ML, Blike GT, et al. The incidence and nature of adverse events during pediatric sedation/anesthesia with propofol for procedures outside the operating room: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:795–804. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818fc334.
    1. Cravero JP, Blike GT, Beach M, et al. Incidence and nature of adverse events during pediatric sedation/anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room: report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1087–1096. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0313.
    1. Epstein JN, Casey BJ, Tonev ST, et al. Assessment and prevention of head motion during imaging of patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2007;155:75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.12.009.
    1. Hallowell LM, Stewart SE, de Amorim ESCT, Ditchfield MR. Reviewing the process of preparing children for MRI. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38:271–279. doi: 10.1007/s00247-007-0704-x.
    1. Harned RK, Strain JD. MRI-compatible audio/visual system: impact on pediatric sedation. Pediatr Radiol. 2001;31:247–250. doi: 10.1007/s002470100426.
    1. Johnson K, Page A, Williams H, et al. The use of melatonin as an alternative to sedation in uncooperative children undergoing an MRI examination. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:502–506. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0923.
    1. Klaver P, Lichtensteiger J, Bucher K, et al. Dorsal stream development in motion and structure-from-motion perception. Neuroimage. 2008;39:1815–1823. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.009.
    1. Koch BL. Avoiding sedation in pediatric radiology. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(Suppl 2):S225–S226. doi: 10.1007/s00247-008-0807-z.
    1. Lawson GR. Controversy: sedation of children for magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Dis Child. 2000;82:150–153. doi: 10.1136/adc.82.2.150.
    1. Lichtensteiger J, Loenneker T, Bucher K, et al. Role of dorsal and ventral stream development in biological motion perception. Neuroreport. 2008;19:1763–1767. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328318ede3.
    1. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Tait AR. Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by nonanesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:1207–1213. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199712000-00005.
    1. Nordahl CW, Simon TJ, Zierhut C, et al. Brief report: methods for acquiring structural MRI data in very young children with autism without the use of sedation. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008;38:1581–1590. doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0514-x.
    1. Pressdee D, May L, Eastman E, Grier D. The use of play therapy in the preparation of children undergoing MR imaging. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:945–947. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9260(97)80229-2.
    1. Raschle NM, Lee M, Buechler R et al. (2009) Making MR imaging child’s play—pediatric neuroimaging protocol, guidelines and procedure. J Vis Exp
    1. Rosenberg DR, Sweeney JA, Gillen JS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of children without sedation: preparation with simulation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36:853–859. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199706000-00024.
    1. Scotttish Intercollegial Guidelines network: safe sedation of children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. A national guideline.;Edinburgh: Royal College of Physicians. 2002
    1. Smart G. Helping children relax during magnetic resonance imaging. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 1997;22:236–241. doi: 10.1097/00005721-199709000-00003.
    1. Supekar K, Musen M, Menon V. Development of large-scale functional brain networks in children. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e1000157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000157.
    1. Wachtel RE, Dexter F, Dow AJ. Growth rates in pediatric diagnostic imaging and sedation. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1616–1621. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181981f96.
    1. Yerys BE, Jankowski KF, Shook D, et al. The fMRI success rate of children and adolescents: typical development, epilepsy, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorders. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30:3426–3435. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20767.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa