From the November 2022 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
Portable MR almost on par with stationary systems for stroke detection
Findings published in April show that portable MR systems are nearly as efficient for diagnosing stroke as stationary MR systems.
Ad Statistics
Times Displayed: 185914
Times Visited: 4761 For those who need to move fast and expand clinical capabilities -- and would love new equipment -- the uCT 550 Advance offers a new fully configured 80-slice CT in up to 2 weeks with routine maintenance and parts and Software Upgrades for Life™ included.
They are also effective at differentiating ischemic strokes from ones caused by blood clots, according to Yale and Harvard researchers who used portable MR to successfully identify such cases in 90% of patients scanned.
Determining the type of stroke a patient has is crucial for choosing the right treatment, as blood thinners are essential for those with ischemic strokes but dangerous for patients with ones where the bleeding is in the brain. Portable MR can bring care right to the patient’s bedside, in ambulances or in remote clinics. It also decreases waiting for scans with stationary MR, which are in high demand and often in use.
As a result, the scientists say that it may ensure faster decision-making and delivery for treatment in remote areas where patients lack access to major hospitals with standard MR systems. “This is the first systematic evidence you can detect ischemic strokes using portable, bedside devices,” said Kevin Sheth, a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Yale School of Medicine and co-corresponding author of the study.
Sheth and his peers used portable MR scanners on 50 patients at Yale New Haven Hospital and found they largely confirmed cases of ischemic stroke that were diagnosed by stationary MRs. For 45 of these patients, it detected blood clots as small as four millimeters in size.
The team used Swoop, a portable MR scanner developed by Yale New Haven and Hyperfine. The solution is equipped with a 0.064 magnet and is 20 times cheaper, 10 times lighter and consumes 35 times less power than fixed conventional MR solutions, according to Hyperfine.
Steven Ford
Possible problems with this study
March 08, 2023 12:47
The study was partially sponsored by the manufacturer of the ultra low field MRI and some of the physicians were investors in that company. This alone does not mean that the study is invalid.
The study you cite DOES NOT show that the low field MRI is nearly as effective as high field MRI in diagnosing stroke. Most importantly, the patients imaged in the ULF scanner had already been diagnosed with a stroke before imaging a second time with the low field machine. A more rigorous study would use a double-blind process.
Secondly, some of the patients were previously imaged using CT, not MRI. This is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.
The MRI scanner in question has limited resolution compared with virtually every MRI in the USA, even 20-year old scanners. It cannot image very small tumors or bleeds.
Finally, the study states that about 80% of the strokes were correctly identified. A more accurate headline would be 'ULF MRI leads to correct diagnosis 80% of the time' or 'ULF MRI Better Than Nothing'. More critically but more accurately, 'ULF MRI is a Poor Alternative if You Have Another Choice'.
A more meaningful study would compare low-cost CT scans to the use of this innovative and clever scanner, because they are more readily available and less costly.
This study has anecdotal value.
to rate and post a comment