BackgroundWith growing numbers of patients receiving deep brain stimulation (DBS), radiologists are encountering these neuromodulation devices at an increasing rate. Current MRI safety guidelines, however, limit MRI access in these patients.PurposeTo describe an MRI (1.5 T and 3 T) experience and safety profile in a large cohort of participants with active DBS systems and characterize the hardware-related artifacts on images from functional MRI.Materials and MethodsIn this prospective study, study participants receiving active DBS underwent 1.5- or 3-T MRI (T1-weighted imaging and gradient-recalled echo [GRE]-echo-planar imaging [EPI]) between June 2017 and October 2018. Short- and long-term adverse events were tracked. The authors quantified DBS hardware-related artifacts on images from GRE-EPI (functional MRI) at the cranial coil wire and electrode contacts. Segmented artifacts were then transformed into standard space to define the brain areas affected by signal loss. Two-sample t tests were used to assess the difference in artifact size between 1.5- and 3-T MRI.ResultsA total of 102 participants (mean age ± standard deviation, 60 years ± 11; 65 men) were evaluated. No MRI-related short- and long-term adverse events or acute changes were observed. DBS artifacts were most prominent near the electrode contacts and over the frontoparietal cortical area where the redundancy of the extension wire is placed subcutaneously. The mean electrode contact artifact diameter was 9.3 mm ± 1.6, and 1.9% ± 0.8 of the brain was obscured by the coil artifact. The coil artifacts were larger at 3 T than at 1.5 T, obscuring 2.1% ± 0.7 and 1.4% ± 0.7 of intracranial volume, respectively (P < .001). The superficial frontoparietal cortex and deep structures neighboring the electrode contacts were most commonly obscured.ConclusionWith a priori local safety testing, patients receiving deep brain stimulation may safely undergo 1.5- and 3-T MRI. Deep brain stimulation hardware-related artifacts only affect a small proportion of the brain.© RSNA, 2019Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Martin in this issue.