MRI Events

MRI Upcoming Events

Learn About MRI

Get Continued Education

Network in the Community

And Have Fun!

UK Kanal MRSO Course Update!

Bac's and Christos ECR Event

ECR 2020 IS POSTPONED TO JULY DUE TO THE RECENT CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK 

MR Enterography – What every Radiographer needs to know

Visit link

Document

MR Urography- The Radiographer’s Perspective

Visit link

Document

Bac's Educational Web Series

Greetings MR Safety Aficionados —!
Recenty; I conducted an interview on significant subject matters pertaining to MR
Safety, with a Renowned Radiologist – A Visionary in the field of Radiological Sciences,
the Person who I consider to be the Founding Father of MR Safety, and who,
essentially, laid the foundation for a new era in Magnetic Resonance Safety, with the
formation of the American Board of Magnetic Resonance Safety or the ABMRS, as it is
universally known – Dr. Emanuel Kanal.
The webinar can be found on our Official YouTube Channel. Check the link
attached to the post.
This article; contains in-depth details, from this MR Safety talk I had with Dr.
Emanuel Kanal on 16th September, 2020:
———————————————————————————————————————
I) On Kanal MRMD/MRSO Courses:
Dr. Kanal – Well, I’ve been providing many, many years worth of lectures in MR Safety;
but the lectures were typically an hour – an hour and a half – in length. I found after
years of doing that this amount of time wasn’t even close to sufficient to be able to
cover the content in any kind of level of detail that I thought was necessary for
practitioners of MR. It’s actually appropriate perhaps for referring physicians or
anesthesiologists, etc. — but it certainly wasn’t what was needed for people that are
actually performing or overseeing magnetic resonance to understand safety in those
areas. I therefore came up with the idea of generating courses that are specifically
covering all the areas and topics that one who will be in charge of overseeing safety in
MR would be expected to be familiar with – and the MRMD/MRSO MR Safety courses
were born. When they first came out in June of 2014 – I believe that was the first
course – I didn’t know what to expect and what we found, really rapidly, is that we had
almost, I think, 150, in our first course – And immediately thereafter, (the courses) just
exploded – We had typically 150-250 in all of our courses. Some courses have
exceeded 300 attendees. And, what I hadn’t anticipated was the tremendous,
massive, interest; the pent-up demand of practitioners of MR – especially
technologists, radiographers. They wanted so much to understand this – but I think
they found they didn’t really have a source to go to until then. They were just thirsty
for knowledge and wanted to understand more and so they were just turning up and
continue to turn up in droves for this information.
II) On the Kanal Method:
Dr. Kanal – What people have referred to as the Kanal Method, is simply a fancy name
for how I approach assessing safety of patients with implants, devices, or foreign
bodies who have been requested to undergo an MR imaging examination. The issue
has been that; until now, we have been dealing with – one energy, one patient, one
exposed volume, and one risk or set of risks – for everything that we have done for xray, for nuclear medicine, for PET, for ultrasound – anything that we have done, we
have taken an energy source, we have irradiated that part of the body, and measured
or detected some of the signal from that part of the body. That was our diagnostic test
– but that was also our exposure. Whatever it was that we did, that might have
exposed this patient to some risk. That risk was from that single energy source to
which we just exposed the region of interest being studied. That energy – and therefore
any associated potential risk(s) – were NOT directed elsewhere, but rather, only to the
anatomy being studied. So, for a chest x-ray; you expose the chest to whatever risks
may be associated with x-ray energy. But MRI is different – and it always has been
different. We require multiple energy sources in order to generate every single MR
image. We need to expose much of the entire human, the patient – to powerful
constant/static magnetic fields. We have to expose them to magnetic fields that
change at hundreds or thousands of times per second, the gradient magnetic fields.
And we have to expose them to magnetic fields that are changing or oscillating at
millions of times per second. While each of these three are different types of magnetic
fields, the fact that they are at different frequencies is what causes them to be
associated with different potential risks.
Therefore, the risk for an implant, device, or foreign body, is quite different if you
expose it to a static magnetic field versus a magnetic field that changes it thousands of
times per second versus exposing it to a magnetic field that changes millions of times
per second. The amplitudes or the magnitude or the size of this energy is very, very,
different amongst these three energies as well. And so, the way I analyze and try to
resolve, whether or not, it’s appropriate to expose a given patient to an MR
examination is exactly the same as I do for any other study that had only one energy
used in that study.
Let me illustrate what I mean by that:
Let’s say that you have a pregnant patient presenting for a CT study of the head.
Should I or should I not expose this patient to a CT scan of the head? – They are
pregnant – I am aware of the potential risk associated with exposing the developing
fetus to x-rays. So how do I decide how to answer that question? My methodology is
to look at the energy being used to probe that patient and I determine where I am
depositing it relative to the location of the fetus for this study. Perhaps it’s a head CT
for trauma. I’d assess the relative exposure and therefore safety to the fetus from a
head CT study. If the potential benefit clearly exceeds the potential risk, then I go
ahead and I do that study. If it doesn’t, I may cancel that study.
I use that identical process for MRI safety assessment for implant, device, and foreign
body patients. But with MRI, instead of applying it just once (like I do in CT when only
one imaging energy source is used), I apply it to all three energies used in the MR
imaging process. So; the Kanal Method is essentially taking the same
methodology we’ve used to date, but now applying it in an iterative fashion, to
multiple energies. We look at the patient and their implant or device or foreign body. I
begin to evaluate one and only one of the three energies used in the MR imaging
process, and temporarily ignore the other two. For example, the static magnetic field.
I evaluate where in the body is that static magnetic field actually going to exist, and
what strength is it over the part of the body that contains the implant or device or
foreign body, positioned and centered the way I plan to study them for this requested
MR examination. How much of that energy will they be exposed to? Is that amount
potentially harmful or not? – If it’s either not harmful, or it is harmful, but I can do
something to mitigate that risk – then the benefit may exceed the risk. But rather than
proceeding with the study, I still have two more energies to assess. So; if I make it past
static fields – Yes, it’s okay to proceed – I proceed to the next energy and I say, let’s
take a look at the radiofrequency, oscillating energy. The transmitted RF energy is
deposited in entirely different location and pattern (i.e., in different spatial locations and
strengths) than was the static magnetic field. Where are those transmitted RF
oscillating magnetic fields being deposited, relative to the implant or foreign body, in
this patient, for this study? – Is that RF exposure either acceptable or can be mitigated
to acceptable levels, or is it quite high? – If the risk is low or can be decreased to
acceptable levels, relative to the potential benefit – I am not done yet – I still can’t
accept the patient. I still have to proceed to evaluate the last energy. I, then, consider
the time-varying gradient magnetic fields (dB/dt), the ones that change it thousands of
times per second. Once again I evaluate where we deposit how much energy, and if
that exposure is acceptable for the implant or foreign body.
If I make it past all three energy assessments finding that, it’s either no or low risk or I
can mitigate the risk to low levels compared to the potential benefit of proceeding with
the study, well then, it looks like I will be accepting that patient for the requested MR
examination.
On the other hand; if any of the risks associated with ANY of the energies used in the
MR imaging process is so great and can’t be mitigated to a level that they are lower
than the potential benefit of scanning this patient, I may end up having to cancel that
patient, or suggesting perhaps another option, or another study, for the same
diagnostic outcome, that is being sought clinically.
In this manner; you can see that the Kanal Method is merely an iterative approach
to that which we have been doing anyway. Repeating the same process, but
don’t accept or cancel that patient until you have assessed the risks associated
with each of the energies that we are going to be using to scan this patient, for
this unusual modality, that is Magnetic Resonance.
III) On the Two MR Safety Apps that he developed – The Kanal MR Safety Implant
Risk Assessment (MRSIRATM) and MagnetVisionTM :
Dr. Kanal – There are two apps that I have developed for MR Safety users. One of
them is the MR Safety Implant Risk Assessment (MRSIRATM) and the other one is
MagnetVisionTM . While they can certainly be used in conjunction with each other,
they are quite different from each other.
I am a pilot. A lot of what I have learned about safety, I have learned from the
aviation industry. In aviation, we use certain procedures and methodologies to
increase safety in that industry. Amongst those, is a constant stress and emphasis on
the utilization of checklists. Furthermore; we are constantly practicing, reviewing, and
repeating, over and over, various scenarios using simulators, so that we don’t have to
go through them in the real world. We don’t want to recover from actually stalling a
787 in the real world, but if I am piloting 787’s in the real world, I need to be able to
recover from an unintended stall. Therefore, professional pilots constantly practice
doing so on simulators. So; checklists and simulators are extensively used throughout
the aviation industry, in an attempt to pursue ever better safety records.
In that light, essentially – the MR Safety Implant Risk Assessment App (MRSIRATM) –
is a checklist. It asks you all the questions that you need to answer when you assess
your patient’s safety for each energy used in MRI, It will go through all the questions
that one should consider before they can answer what the potential risks are for each
of these energies – You asked me earlier about the Kanal Method? Kanal’s MR Safety
Implant Risk Assessment App (MRSIRATM) is an embodiment in an app form of
the Kanal Method. It is an extensive checklist. It walks you through that iterative
process that we just described, and takes you through the steps.It asks you the
questions, you provide the answers. Based on your answers, it directs you to the next
questions you need to consider. At the end, there either is; or isn’t, a significant risk for
each of those energies – And therefore; for the MR study being requested. The app is
designed to be used by an MRSO, an MRSE, an MRMD – someone who has
knowledge in the field of MR safety. – It will ask you questions like : For the study
you are considering performing, is the implant in an area that is expected to be
exposed to significant transmitted B1 energy OR to its secondarily induced
electrical field pathways? Somebody who has no idea about MRI safety is not going
to be able to answer that question. As you can see, this checklist app is actually
meant for the pilot. It is meant for someone with expertise in MR safety – an
MRMD, an MRSO, an MRSE – to answer those questions in a clinical setting.
The simulator – MagnetVisionTM – is actually a teaching and decision support tool
meant for a technologist, a radiographer, to use, and then to send its results to
the covering radiologist or MRMD. It’s sort of like “the MR safety app for the rest of
us”. It is designed to simulate the patient, the implant or foreign body on or in
that patient, and the MR scanner hardware and its associated fields or energies.
It; then, simulates or models the energies or fields to which the implant or foreign body
would actually be exposed for the requested MR study, and reports those results to the
end user. As a simulator, MagnetVisionTM will ask you for a patient gender, height,
weight. Once entered, the app will create a population-averaged threedimensional (3D) avatar of that patient for you wit those values for gender, height,
and weight. The user can fine-tune all the values, but in the end it is designed to
render an avatar that mimics the patient being modeled. It then asks you what
implant or device or foreign body is on or in that patient and it allows you to create or
define or choose that implant or foreign body from a list together with its device/FDA
labeling, if any. Even if it doesn’t have an FDA approved label, you can define your own
comfort limits for magnitude of exposure of this device or foreign body to the various
MR-related energies. The app then lets you choose an MR scanner from any of several
dozen that the app now models. For example, General Electric (GE) recently told me
that, at this time, roughly 85-90% of the worldwide installed base of GE MR
scanners are simulated on MagnetVisionTM . The app also models some Hitachi
and Philips scanners – we are constantly adding scanners. You then select the
scanner that you are about to place that patient into. Or perhaps you may have access
to any of 3 different scanners, and do not know which one might produce a lower risk
for this patient. You can select the MR scanner that you want to model or simulate,
and then simulate positioning that patient/avatar – Would you put them in head-first?
Feet-first? Superman position? One or both arms up? Both arms down? – Whatever
you would want to do in real life for the requested study. And lastly; you simulate your
landmark or study center. Where you would center that patient for a pituitary study
might be very different, for example, from a knee study. So; you simulate the patient,
the MR scanner, the device which you implant into that avatar, you simulate the
FDA labeling of that device, you simulate the positioning three-dimensionally that
the technologist or radiographer would use for that patient in the MR scanner for
the requested study – and you simulate how they would center that patient for
that study. As soon as the last of these is completed, the rest, I like to say, is just
Math. At that point the app can tell – and SHOW – you what magnitudes of what
energies would that implant or device or foreign body would be expected to be
exposed to for the B0 static field, the dB/dX spatial field gradient, for the dB/dt
gradient magnetic fields, and for the RF-B1 magnetic fields. I have recently added
a few other calculations that the app will perform for you in real time and graphically
depict as well. The app will also produce a detailed report providing all this information
in written format in a table, in a graph, in 3D graphic format, and in English with a
written detailed explanation/report of all the results of the modeling it performed.
MagnetVision™ lets the user see exactly what the device exposures would be at
any point, if any, to any of the MR-related energies and fields. Further; if the
calculated exposure of that device would exceed a labeled safety threshold, it
would depict the device in that location in red, and would print such results in red
in the report, it would display the associated curve in red. If the calculated
exposure value would approach but not exceed a labeled safety threshold for any
MR related energy, the app would display such values as yellow. And if calculated
exposure levels are far below any safety threshold, it would show up as green. It
is meant for the rest of us to very readily and rapidly simulate, what we are about to do
on a patient on our schedule, and tells us beforehand; Is this going to work? Are we
going to be able to do this safely, on this scanner? It also has other features built
into it. For example; if your patient has a certain gender, height, and weight, and
you choose a certain MR scanner, the app performs statistical patientpopulation-based calculations accordingly. If it thinks that patient’s girth will likely
have problems fitting into the selected MR scanner, it will warn you long before
that patient even gets to the MR suite, so that you are forewarned that
accommodating this patient in this MR scanner may pose a problem. Further, if
the app believes that the patient’s body will approach too close to the inside wall
of the MR scanner bore, it will issue what I call a proximity alert and tell you that
you have to be extra careful with padding that patient to avoid a type of RFinduced patient burn.
IV) On an In-Depth Description of the Kanal’s MagnetVision™ App (how did he
come up with it, how does it help improve MR Safety, what platforms / devices is the
app compatible with and who, among the MR healthcare personnel, is it designed to
help):
Dr. Kanal – Okay, so there’s a bunch of questions – Let’s see if I got all these –
So, the first one you asked me was; how did I come up with it (MagnetVisionTM).
That is easy. I love to teach! – And, this app was created singularly for the purpose
of my wanting to visualize for you that which I think many people may have
trouble visualizing. What is the magnetic field? Where is it deposited in space?
What is the RF field? The gradient magnetic fields, where are they distributed in
space? The RF (and also gradient) magnetic fields will, in turn, induce electrical fields; I
can’t know where the electrical fields will be generated, if I don’t know where the
magnetic fields inducing them are transmitted.
I called it MagnetVisionTM since it takes the invisible and make it visible. These
forces that we have been talking about are all invisible. The purpose was to help
me visualize for my students, where these are distributed in space so that you can
then try to analyze well – “Wait a minute, if it’s over there; but my device or implant or
what you have is over here, and it’s sufficiently removed, and there’s no low resistive
pathway that goes to it, then it’s not going to be adversely affected by” – It helps you
visualize those relationships spatially and three-dimensionally.
You also ask me what platform is it compatible with?
I have a tremendous group developing this app with me, headed by George
Michalopoulos, called ICAT Medical located in England. Nevertheless, I am only one
person and there’s only so much I can do. As a result, we only have developed it for
the Apple IOS platforms. It is an app like any other Apple iOS app. That means it
will work on on iPads, it works on iPhones – Interestingly; Apple may start to move
the IOS operating system to their computers. If it actually does go to the point;
where the Macintosh operating systems become IOS operating systems, then
that opens up the possibility of having this simulator work at a future date, on the
exceptional processing capabilities of the hardware available only on laptops and
desktops. If and when that happens, the sky is the limit as to what we could
calculate and what we could show in real time. Right now the app is designed for
IOS devices specifically. While I far prefer it on the iPad or iPad Pro, it seems that many
technologists seem to prefer running it on an iPhone. I don’t like the small screen of
the iPhone, but personal preferences are after all personal preferences!
MagnetVision™ is designed to be used by the technologist, the radiographer, to
enter the data. We have now added the ability to be enable handing the device to
the patient who can then complete the ACR screening questionnaire. Our beta
versions automatically compare the responses from that patient to the responses
from the last time the patient completed the questionnaire and warn the
technologist of any discrepancy. The app, again, is designed to be used by the
technologist. They; then, take the output – graphically, textually, charts, all the
safety data that it produces, and at the touch of a button, it can be sent in an
encoded, encrypted secure fashion to your physician/radiologist. S/he can then
review the report and can respond to the technologist by saying that the study is
approved to be scanned, not approved and should be canceled, or approved for
scanning but with the following specific methods or limits (e.g., : limit SAR to
normal operating mode of 2 W/Kg, etc.). In this manner, there will be a
contemporaneously time stamped written record of all decisions made on that
patient for that study. The latest beta versions we are working on have
capabilities designed specifically for the MRSE to help them with force and
torque quantification, detailed graphing output control, etc.
V) On the 2020 ACR “2 MR Personnel” recommendations – the necessity of two
MR Technologists or one MR technologist and one other individual with the
designation MR Personnel in the immediate Zone II through Zone IV MR
environment, whenever patients are in the MR environment, in facilities :
Dr. Kanal – That is an excellent question. It is important to point out that I am not
speaking for the American College of Radiology (ACR) ; I don’t represent them, I am
simply an individual providing my own opinion on this matter. The ACR Safety
Committee, recently released a new Manual on MR Safety in 2020. That manual is the
source of what I believe you are now asking – which is – “What do you think about
having to have two people required during MR scanning?” – At least one must be Level
II MR Personnel during scanning, but the second can be level 1 MR personnel. But the
present recommendation is that there should be two people in Zones 3 and 4 during
scanning. I think it’s important to point out that this recommendation is actually based
on the VA’s publication and recommendations that preceded the ACR’s Safety
Committee/ACR MR Safety Manual supporting this recommendation. What is my
opinion? – I am extremely in favor of it and always have been – I think that; one
person scanning a patient alone, truly alone, is a dangerous environment, is
asking for trouble, and is something that prospectively, we should be not
permitting. Again; so much of what we see, if you don’t mind by going back to a prior
example, the aviation industry stresses that catastrophes rarely happen, but when they
do there’s usually a string of events which, if we could break any of those string of
events, we could prevent that catastrophe from having happened. If only this door
would have been closed; if only I would have had this latched before, if only I would
have been aware of that risk… then, the whole string of events would have been
broken and the catastrophic outcome could have been averted. The same thing
applies here – In my opinion; this is a perfect example of an area where we can
clearly, prospectively, predict that working in isolation in Zones 3 and 4 is an
accident waiting to happen. If something happens to that patient and they have an
emergency, such as a heart attack, chest pains, etc.; if the patient suddenly aspirates;
if I have to run into Zone 4 to assist that patient to help manage an emergency within
Zone IV, I am not free to make phone calls, I am not free to call for help, I am not free to
leave the side of the patient. If so; and I know beforehand that this would be the case,
why not have another person there, that can assist me during an emergency? I don’t
want them or need them assisting me in the room necessarily; I just need them to be
there in earshot and eyeshot so I can say to them; “I’ve got an emergency, call 911,”
“I’ve got an emergency, call a code,” “I’ve got an emergency, get Dr. Smith on the line”.
Conceptually, the second person is an easy step to implement to help break the chain
of events that could lead to anticipated catastrophic outcomes. One person alone
cannot be expected to provide chest compressions while they bring the patient
out of the room while they stabilize the airway, call for help, monitor safe access
in the MR environment when non-MR personnel respond to an emergent call for
help, etc. It’s just not realistic – Somebody has to call for help; somebody has to
organize a response while somebody is dealing with the immediate needs of that
patient. These are my opinions on this issue.
VI) On the Top MR Safety Concerns in our industry, Today:
Dr. Kanal – I have an easy answer to that one. In my opinion; the top issue in MR
Safety facing our specialty today, is exactly what it was 20 years ago, 30 years
ago – It’s that, so many people are practicing MRI and don’t understand the safety
issues that are associated with this modality, that they are chosen to work in. 20
years ago, right after Michael Colombini was so tragically killed by the oxygen
tank brought into Zone 4 by the anesthesiologist, the ACR formed a Blue Ribbon
Panel on MR Safety – the forerunner of today’s ACR MR Safety Committee. The
ACR asked me to head this group, and requested that we review numerous
reported MR safety adverse events, perform root cause analyses of them, and
determine not only what happened but why did it happen, and what could have
been done to prevent it? Almost 20 years ago we found that if we, as MR
practitioners, accomplished two things, the vast majority of MR safety adverse events
could be avoided/prevented. The two things – in no particular order – are 1)
Adequate site access restriction and 2) Adequate MR safety education of all MR
practitioners – not of the referring physician, not of the respiratory tech who’s
accompanying the patient, not the anesthesiologist. But rather, of US. The
radiologist, the technologist. This is my site, I must adequately control it, and I need
to make certain that the people that operate our site have sufficient understanding and
control over the site to ensure the safety of not only the patient, but the healthcare
practitioners who are working in and around that environment. This is no different from
the specific safety needs associated with any operating room today. So; What do I
think is the number one issue or issues?- Exactly as they had been 20-30 years
ago. Maybe, it’s improved somewhat since then. But the exquisite majority of MR
safety related adverse events today are entirely preventable. It’s 2019, 2020, yet
we continue to read about healthcare personnel entering into MR scanners with
iron weights, iron vests on their body, or bringing oxygen tanks or guns or iron
traction devices into Zone 4. MR professionals are still scanning patients with
wires or abandoned leads and not even bringing it to the attention of the
Radiologist who’s eventually going to be found responsible for that burn or for
that arrhythmia that might develop. So many MR practitioners today, still do not
understand the basic processes underlying MR imaging and the associated
potential safety issues that accompany these phenomena. Lexie, I believe that this
is still the number one issue facing Magnetic Resonance safety internationally, today.
VII) On his Goals for MR Safety, 20 Years from Now:
Dr. Kanal – That’s actually also an easy answer for me. And again; this is just my
opinion. But; I have very, very, clear goals. I; literally, set out to change the world, when
it came to MR Safety – That’s not meant as a joke and it’s not meant as an
exaggeration – I wanted to redefine how things were done. My objectives today
remain as they had been focused on; Standardization and Certification in MR
safety. Today, most understand and recognize that safety is a potential issue in
Magnetic Resonance. Indeed; in the vast majority of cases, MRI does not result in any
adverse events, and it is generally one of the safest diagnostic imaging modalities
available today. That’s what makes it so unfortunate and ironic when we do hurt
someone, because in the extremely rare circumstance when someone is truly seriously
hurt in in MRI, virtually 100% of the time it’s OUR fault, and it could have been entirely
prevented. That injury did not need to happen. I like to say that we certify everything
in an airplane, but we also certify the pilot – not only do we certify the pilot, but
specifically the pilot has to constantly undergo repeated recertification. In
Magnetic Resonance; no specific MR safety curriculum and education is required
of its practitioners, and certainly no one has to demonstrate any proficiency in
MR safety before not only performing MR examinations but actually overseeing
their safe execution! To that end, in 2015, I created and founded the American
Board of Magnetic Resonance Safety (ABMRS) to help create certification and
standardization in MR safety for all its operators. Certainly such certification
does not guarantee performance; but in my opinion it is substantially better than
not even trying .
As for standardization: One of the most important points of my entire MR Safety
courses is that there are an infinite number of ways patients can present, with an
infinite number of devices/foreign bodies in an infinite number of orientations or
positions on or in a patient; this is an infinite number of permutations to any device, to
any implant, to any foreign body, in any patient, of any physical structure and body
habitus, on any MR scanner hardware and study design.- But; the interesting point is
that, for any and every possible patient to be scanned, I can approach each and
every one of them in the exact same fashion. Let me explain: There are so any
things that can go wrong in a plane; but there’s a checklist, and the checklist is there to
anticipate the classes of things that can go wrong. When something goes wrong, you
go through your checklist to best determine how to get out of such a situation. I
demonstrate to my MR safety students that it is entirely possible to standardize what
we ask for ALL our patients and devices, and that in reality it is only the answers that
change each time – which, in turn, determines the next set of standard questions to
ask. In the end, the process of evaluating device or foreign body patients can be
entirely standardized, and can be based on pre-determined checklist of questions,
anticipating possible responses and using those to guide what other questions need to
be asked and answered before we can accurately assess the risk of continuing with the
requested MR examination. The objectives of the Kanal’s MR Safety Implant Risk
Assessment (MRSIRATM) app and the MagnetVisionTM app help demonstrate that
you can standardize the approach to all device patients. So, what are my
objectives? They are the same as they were when I began this career in MR
safety in 1984: Certification and Standardization of our MR Safety practices,
treating it as the finite science that it is as we do any other scientific endeavor in
medicine and patient care.
——————————————————————————————————————
And that brings us to an end. Dr. Kanal, I would like to respectfully thank you for this
valuable information regarding the Kanal Method, MagnetVision™, and MR Safety that
you have shared today. Thank you for your stellar contributions to our industry and for
such helpful information on MR Safety to help educate people on making the MR
environment safer.
If anyone is interested in the MR Safety Programs that Dr. Kanal offers, please
visit the Northwest Imaging Forums Website – https://www.nwforums.com/
2020-2/ – for further information.
There is one KANAL MRMD/MRSO Course, coming up with a VIRTUAL OPTION
from Orlando, Florida – On November 15th-18th, 2020.
All applicable COVID-19 and Social – Distancing Guidelines shall be in place, for
the entire duration of this course.
I spoke to Dr. Kanal; you may reach out to:
1) Dr. Emanuel Kanal at – ekanal@pitt.edu – for any and all questions, comments,
feedback, etc.
2) NWForums – Who host the Kanal MRMD/SO Courses – is headed by Matt
Wilson who can be reached at – matt@nwforums.com
The Registration Link(s) to the 2020 FLORIDA KANAL MRMD/MRSO COURSES
WITH VIRTUAL OPTION can be found below:
https://www.nwforums.com/events/kanals-mrmd-mrso-mr-safety-training-courseorlando-fl-virtual/
———————————————————————————————————-
Dr. Emanuel Kanal is the Director of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Services as well as
Chief of the Division of Emergency Radiology and Teleradiology and also Professor of
Radiology and Neuroradiology in the the Department of Radiology at the University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC). Dr. Kanal was the chair of the first national and
international MR safety committee ever created. Additionally, he served as the chair of
ACR’s Blue Ribbon Panel on MR Safety from its inception in 2001 until the summer of
2012. He is the lead author of the ACR’s White Paper on MR Safety, its contained MR
Safe Practice Guidelines, and their various updates. He is also the lead author of the
just recently published on-line ACR Manual on MR Safety.
Additionally; he has been named as a Special Government Employee to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), consulting them on MR Safety issues as well as on safety
issues relating to contrast agent usage in Radiology.
Dr. Kanal created the first MR Safety courses in 2014; since then, more than 6,500 have
attended his courses held in several dozen cities countries around the world.
Dr. Kanal is also the founder of – and continues to serve on the board of – the American
Board of MR Safety (ABMRS) which is the first not-for-profit organization, formed
exclusively for advocating MR Safety initiatives and certifying/credentialing, by means
of formal written examinations – Magnetic Resonance Medical Director (MRMD),
Magnetic Resonance Safety Officer (MRSO), and Magnetic Resonance Safety Expert
(MRSE) – the individuals charged with ensuring safety in the MR environments.
He is also credited with creating the first MR Safety website in 1995 and is also the coauthor of the first textbook dedicated to improving MR Safety initiatives.
He also is the author of two apps dedicated entirely to MR safety, Kanal’s MR Safety
Implant Risk Assessment, and MagnetVision™.
For his steadfast commitment towards the prevention of MR adverse events and
improving MR safety initiatives, he has been awarded a fellowship in the American
College of Radiology (ACR) as well as the International Society of Magnetic Resonance
in Medicine (ISMRM).
Aside from his contributions to Radiology-Healthcare; Dr. Emanuel Kanal is also a
licensed pilot and continues to serve in the aviation industry.
In many ways and to date, Dr. Kanal, remains an inspiration to me as I strive to dedicate
efforts towards improving MR Safety initiatives at my Educational Organization – MRI
Buzz – as well.

en_USEnglish (United States)
en_GBEnglish (UK) en_USEnglish (United States)

What the heck does this look like to you!?

These are not recommendations of MRI Buzz or any collaborators. Please check with your radiologist prior to delivering dose.