NeuroMix with MRA: A Fast MR Protocol to Reduce Head and Neck CTA for Patients with Acute Neurologic Presentations

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Tung M,
   2. Sharma R,
   3. Hinson JS, et al

   . Factors associated with imaging overuse in the emergency department: a systematic review. Am J Emerg Med 2018;36:301–09 doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2017.10.049 pmid:29100783

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
2. 2.↵
   1. Dan Lantsman C,
   2. Barash Y,
   3. Klang E, et al

   . Trend in radiologist workload compared to number of admissions in the emergency department. Eur J Radiol 2022;149:110195 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110195 pmid:35149337

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
3. 3.↵
   1. Tu LH,
   2. Malhotra A,
   3. Venkatesh AK, et al

   . Head and neck CTA utilization: analysis of ordering frequency and nonroutine results communication, with focus on the 50 most common emergency department clinical presentations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022;218:544–51 doi:10.2214/AJR.21.26543 pmid:34585611

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4. 4.↵
   1. Canon CL,
   2. Chick JB,
   3. DeQuesada I, et al

   . Physician burnout in radiology: perspectives from the field. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022;218:370–74 doi:10.2214/AJR.21.26756 pmid:34494444

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
5. 5.↵
   1. Shyu JY,
   2. Sodickson AD

   . Communicating radiation risk to patients and referring physicians in the emergency department setting. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20150868 doi:10.1259/bjr.20150868 pmid:26647958

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
6. 6.↵
   1. Abalo KD,
   2. Rage E,
   3. Leuraud K, et al

   . Early life ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risks: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Radiol 2021;51:45–56 doi:10.1007/s00247-020-04803-0 pmid:32910229

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
7. 7.↵
   1. Tu LH,
   2. Melnick E,
   3. Venkatesh AK, et al

   . Cost-effectiveness of CT, CTA, MRI, and specialized MRI for evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department with dizziness. Am J Roentgenol 2024;222:e2230060 doi:10.2214/ajr.23.30060 pmid:37937837

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8. 8.↵
   1. Mark DG,
   2. Horton BH,
   3. Reed ME, et al

   . Shifts in diagnostic testing for headache in the emergency department. JAMA Netw Open 2024;7:e247373 doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.7373 pmid:38639937

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
9. 9.↵
   1. Rigney GH,
   2. King AH,
   3. Chung J, et al

   . Trends in non-focal neurological chief complaints and CT angiography utilization among adults in the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med 2024 Mar 21. [Eupub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s11739-024-03569-9 pmid:38512433

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
10. 10.↵
    1. Mehan WA,
    2. Shin D,
    3. Buch K

    . Effect of provider type on overutilization of CT angiograms of the head and neck for patients presenting to the emergency department with nonfocal neurologic symptoms. J Am Coll Radiol 2024;21:890–95 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.08.042 pmid:37722466

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
11. 11.↵
    1. Poyiadji N,
    2. Beauchamp N,
    3. Myers D, et al

    . Diagnostic imaging utilization in the emergency department: recent trends in volume and radiology work relative value units. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:1207–14 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.06.033 pmid:37543154

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
12. 12.↵
    1. Sprenger T,
    2. Kits A,
    3. Norbeck O, et al

    . NeuroMix: a single-scan brain exam. Magn Reson Med 2022;87:2178–93 doi:10.1002/mrm.29120 pmid:34904751

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
13. 13.↵
    1. Johnston SC,
    2. Rothwell PM,
    3. Nguyen-Huynh MN, et al

    . Validation and refinement of scores to predict very early stroke risk after transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2007;369:283–92 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60150-0 pmid:17258668

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
14. 14.↵
    1. Agresti A,
    2. Coull BA

    . Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Statcan Statistician Francis & Taylor, Ltd; 1998;52:119–26 doi:10.2307/2685469

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
15. 15.↵
    1. Rachh P,
    2. Pendley AM,
    3. Duong PAT, et al

    . Decreasing CT acquisition time in the emergency department through lean management principles. Radiographics 2021;41:E81–89 doi:10.1148/rg.2021200107 pmid:33939543

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
16. 16.↵
    1. Jomaah R,
    2. Barrat JA,
    3. Tripier R, et al

    . Iodine footprint: moving towards environmental responsibility. J Neuroradiol 2023;50:1–2 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2022.11.002 pmid:36400241

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
17. 17.↵
    1. Yan H,
    2. Zhang T,
    3. Yang Y, et al

    . Occurrence of iodinated contrast media (ICM) in water environments and their control strategies with a particular focus on iodinated by-products formation: a comprehensive review. J Environ Manage 2024;351:119931 doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119931 pmid:38154220

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
18. 18.↵
    1. Brazzelli M,
    2. Chappell FM,
    3. Miranda H, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging and diagnosis of transient ischemic attack. Ann Neurol 2014;75:67–76 doi:10.1002/ana.24026 pmid:24085376

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
19. 19.↵
    1. Amin HP,
    2. Madsen TE,
    3. Bravata DM, et al

    ; American Heart Association Emergency Neurovascular Care Committee of the Stroke Council and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Diagnosis, workup, risk reduction of transient ischemic attack in the emergency department setting: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke 2023;54:E109–21 doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000418 pmid:36655570

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
20. 20.↵
    1. Timpone VM,
    2. Reid M,
    3. Jensen A, et al

    . Association of incomplete neurovascular imaging after emergency department encounters for transient ischemic attack and odds of subsequent stroke: a national Medicare analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023;221:673–86 doi:10.2214/AJR.23.29352 pmid:37255044

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
21. 21.↵
    1. Marquardt L,
    2. Kuker W,
    3. Chandratheva A, et al

    . Incidence and prognosis of ≥50% symptomatic vertebral or basilar artery stenosis: prospective population-based study. Brain 2009;132:982–88 doi:10.1093/brain/awp026 pmid:19293244

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
22. 22.↵
    1. Paul NL,
    2. Simoni M,
    3. Rothwell PM

    ; Oxford Vascular Study. Transient isolated brainstem symptoms preceding posterior circulation stroke: a population-based study. Lancet Neurol 2013;12:65–71 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70299-5 pmid:23206553

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
23. 23.↵
    1. Markus HS,
    2. Larsson SC,
    3. Kuker SC, et al

    . Stenting for symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis: the Vertebral Artery Ischaemia Stenting trial. Neurology 2017;89:1229–36 doi:10.1212/WNL.000000000000438 pmid:28835400

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
24. 24.↵
    1. Edlow JA

    . Managing patients with transient ischemic attack. Ann Emerg Med 2018;71:409–15 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.06.026 pmid:28754355

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
25. 25.↵
    1. Patel DM,
    2. Tubbs RS,
    3. Pate G, et al

    . Fast-sequence MRI studies for surveillance imaging in pediatric hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2014;13:440–47 doi:10.3171/2014.1.PEDS13447 pmid:24559278

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
26. 26.↵
    1. Lindberg DM,
    2. Stence NV,
    3. Grubenhoff JA, et al

    . Feasibility and accuracy of fast MRI versus CT for traumatic brain injury in young children. Pediatrics 2019;144:2019419 doi:10.1542/peds.2019-0419 pmid:31533974

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
27. 27.↵
    1. Cohen AR,
    2. Caruso P,
    3. Duhaime AC, et al

    . Feasibility of “rapid” magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric acute head injury. Am J Emerg Med 2015;33:887–90 doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.03.052 pmid:25912791

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
28. 28.↵
    1. Kessler BA,
    2. Goh JL,
    3. Pajer HB, et al

    . Rapid-sequence MRI for evaluation of pediatric traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2021;28:278–86 doi:10.3171/2021.2.PEDS20852 pmid:34171833

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
29. 29.↵
    1. Delgado AF,
    2. Kits A,
    3. Bystam J, et al

    . Diagnostic performance of a new multicontrast one-minute full brain exam (EPIMix) in neuroradiology: a prospective study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50:1824–33 doi:10.1002/jmri.26742 pmid:30932287

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
30. 30.↵
    1. Nael K,
    2. Khan R,
    3. Choudhary G, et al

    . Six-minute magnetic resonance imaging protocol for evaluation of acute ischemic stroke: pushing the boundaries. Stroke 2014;45:1985–91 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005305 pmid:24916906

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
31. 31.↵
    1. Eisenmenger LB,
    2. Peret A,
    3. Roberts GS, et al

    . Focused abbreviated survey MRI protocols for brain and spine imaging. Radiographics 2023;43:e220147 doi:10.1148/rg.220147 pmid:37167089

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
32. 32.↵
    1. Clifford B,
    2. Conklin J,
    3. Huang SY, et al

    . An artificial intelligence-accelerated 2-minute multi-shot echo planar imaging protocol for comprehensive high-quality clinical brain imaging. Magn Reson Med 2022;87:2453–63 doi:10.1002/mrm.29117 pmid:34971463

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
33. 33.↵
    1. Lang M,
    2. Clifford B,
    3. Lo W-C, et al

    . Clinical evaluation of a 2-minute ultrafast brain MR protocol for evaluation of acute pathology in the emergency and inpatient settings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2024;45:379–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A8143 pmid:38453413

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
34. 34.↵
    1. Altmann S,
    2. Grauhan NF,
    3. Brockstedt L, et al

    . Ultrafast brain MRI with deep learning reconstruction for suspected acute ischemic stroke. Radiology 2024;310:e231938 doi:10.1148/radiol.231938 pmid:38376403

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
35. 35.↵
    1. Robinson JD,
    2. Gross JA,
    3. Cohen WA, et al

    . Operational considerations in emergency radiology. Semin Roentgenol 2020;55:83–94 doi:10.1053/j.ro.2020.03.001 pmid:32438983

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
36. 36.↵
    1. Redd V,
    2. Levin S,
    3. Toerper M, et al

    . Effects of fully accessible magnetic resonance imaging in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:741–49 doi:10.1111/acem.12686 pmid:25998846

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
37. 37.↵
    1. Buller M,
    2. Karis JP

    . Introduction of a dedicated emergency department MR imaging scanner at the Barrow Neurological Institute. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1480–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5210 pmid:28495948

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
38. 38.↵
    1. Gil H,
    2. Tuttle AA,
    3. Dean LA, et al

    . Dedicated MRI in the emergency department to expedite diagnostic management of hip fracture. Emerg Radiol 2020;27:41–44 doi:10.1007/s10140-019-01729-5 pmid:31617107

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
39. 39.↵
    1. Chang G,
    2. Doshi A,
    3. Chandarana H, et al

    . Impact of COVID-19 workflow changes on patient throughput at outpatient imaging centers. Acad Radiol 2021;28:297–306 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2020.12.016 pmid:33516590

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
40. 40.↵
    1. Fiebach JB,
    2. Schellinger PD,
    3. Gass A, et al

    ; Kompetenznetzwerk Schlaganfall B5. Stroke magnetic resonance imaging is accurate in hyperacute intracerebral hemorrhage: a multicenter study on the validity of stroke imaging. Stroke 2004;35:502–06 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000114203.75678.88 pmid:14739410

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
41. 41.↵
    1. Kidwell CS,
    2. Chalela JA,
    3. Saver JL, et al

    . Comparison of MRI and CT for detection of acute intracerebral hemorrhage. JAMA 2004;292:1823–30 doi:10.1001/jama.292.15.1823 pmid:15494579

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
42. 42.↵
    1. Antipova D,
    2. Eadie L,
    3. MacAden A, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tools for assessment of acute stroke: a systematic review. BMC Emerg Med 2019;19:49 doi:10.1186/s12873-019-0262-1 pmid:31484499

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar