Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:47:23.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of infusion pump performance in a magnetic resonance environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2004

P. G. Bradley ,
S. G. Harding ,
K. Reape-Moore ,
R. Abeygunaratne  and
D. K. Menon
P. G. Bradley
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Cambridge, UK
S. G. Harding
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Cambridge, UK
K. Reape-Moore
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Department of Medical Physics, Cambridge, UK
R. Abeygunaratne
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Neurosciences Critical Care Unit, Cambridge, UK
D. K. Menon
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Cambridge, UK
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: For use in a magnetic resonance (MR) scanning room infusion pumps must be MR safe and compatible. This study tested two commonly used infusion pumps (Alaris P6000 and Alaris Asena-GH) to determine if they met these criteria.

Methods: The pumps underwent testing within the scanning room of a 3 T MR scanner. Pump infusion rates were tested at up to 100 Gauss magnetic field strength, with and without radio frequency signals present. The effect of the pumps on image quality was assessed. The occlusion pressure alarm of the pumps was tested at up to 100 Gauss. The projectile risk was assessed by measuring the force exerted upon the pumps at the entrance to the scanner.

Results: The maximum mean flow rate errors at 100 Gauss were 2.18% for the Alaris P6000 and 1.42% for the Alaris Asena-GH, both within our accepted limits. Radio frequency signals had no effect on flow rate. The pumps produced no discernable artefacts on the acquired images. The maximum mean occlusion pressure error was 204 mmHg higher for the Alaris P6000 pump and 99 mmHg lower for the Alaris Asena-GH (P-values < 0.001) at 100 Gauss compared to testing outside the scanner. Both pumps were subject to significant attractive force at the entrance to the scanner.

Conclusions: Whilst the pumps cannot strictly be termed MR safe or compatible at 100 Gauss we have demonstrated that flow rates are unchanged and that, for the Alaris Asena-GH, the effect on the occlusion pressure alarm is unlikely to have patient safety implications.

Keywords

INFUSION PUMPSMAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGINGEQUIPMENT SAFETY
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 21 , Issue 9 , September 2004 , pp. 729 - 733
Copyright
2004 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A primer on medical device interactions with magnetic resonance imaging systems. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 1997. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/primerf6.html#appendix
Peden CJ, Menon DK, Hall AS, Sargentoni J, Whitwam JG. Magnetic resonance for the anaesthetist.Part ii: Anaesthesia and monitoring in MR units. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 508–517.Google Scholar
Peden CJ, Menon DK, Hall AS, Sargentoni J, Whitwam JG. Magnetic resonance for the anaesthetist. Part i: Physical principles, applications, safety aspects. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 240–255.Google Scholar
Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, et al. American college of radiology white paper on MR safety. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1335–1347.Google Scholar
Guidelines on the provision of anaesthetic services in magnetic resonance units. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. 2002. http://www.aagbi.org/pdf/mri.pdf
Williams EJ, Tam YC, Kendall IV, Carpenter TA, Menon DK. Infusion pump performance in an MR environment. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1999; 16: 468–472.Google Scholar