Patient acceptance of whole-body magnetic resonance angiography: A prospective questionnaire study

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient acceptance of whole-body magnetic resonance angiography: A prospective questionnaire study

AU - Nielsen, Yousef Jesper Wirenfeldt

AU - Eiberg, Jonas Peter

AU - Løgager, Vibeke Berg

AU - Just, Sven Richardt Lundgren

AU - Schroeder, Torben V

AU - Thomsen, Henrik Segelcke

PY - 2010/4/1

Y1 - 2010/4/1

N2 - Background: Whole-body magnetic resonance angiography (WB-MRA) is a noninvasive method for diagnosing the systemic distribution of atherosclerosis. Numerous studies have demonstrated the feasibility and diagnostic performance of WB-MRA, but no studies have investigated patient acceptance of this imaging method. Purpose: To measure patient acceptance of WB-MRA compared to the gold standard, digital subtraction angiography (DSA), in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Material and Methods: In a prospective design, 79 consecutive patients (51 male, mean age 67 years) with symptomatic PAD, scheduled to undergo both WB-MRA and DSA, were included. Patient acceptance of each imaging procedure was assessed with a postal questionnaire (13 questions). A five-point rank scale (1, no discomfort; 5, severe discomfort) was used to grade patient discomfort. Results: One patient was excluded from data analysis (did not undergo DSA). Of the remaining 78 patients, 69 completed the questionnaire (response rate 88%). Overall discomfort scores were higher in DSA compared to WB-MRA (mean 2.1 and 1.7, respectively; P = 0.06). In WB-MRA, overall discomfort was strongly correlated to feeling confined in the MRI system (R = 0.77, P< 0.001). In DSA, discomfort was strongly correlated to arterial puncture (R = 0.66, P< 0.001) and contrast injection (R = 0.65, P< 0.001). Injection of iodinated contrast agent at DSA was graded more uncomfortable than injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent at WB-MRA (mean 2.1 vs. 1.5, respectively; P<0.001). Sixty-two patients (90%) were willing to repeat WB-MRA, and 64 patients (93%) would repeat DSA if they needed another vascular examination. Forty-one patients preferred WB-MRA (60%), 12 patients preferred DSA (17%), and 16 patients had no preference (23%). Patient preference of WB-MRA over DSA was statistically significant (P< 0.001). Conclusion: Patient acceptance of WB-MRA is superior to that of DSA in patients with PAD, with the majority of patients preferring WB-MRA.

AB - Background: Whole-body magnetic resonance angiography (WB-MRA) is a noninvasive method for diagnosing the systemic distribution of atherosclerosis. Numerous studies have demonstrated the feasibility and diagnostic performance of WB-MRA, but no studies have investigated patient acceptance of this imaging method. Purpose: To measure patient acceptance of WB-MRA compared to the gold standard, digital subtraction angiography (DSA), in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Material and Methods: In a prospective design, 79 consecutive patients (51 male, mean age 67 years) with symptomatic PAD, scheduled to undergo both WB-MRA and DSA, were included. Patient acceptance of each imaging procedure was assessed with a postal questionnaire (13 questions). A five-point rank scale (1, no discomfort; 5, severe discomfort) was used to grade patient discomfort. Results: One patient was excluded from data analysis (did not undergo DSA). Of the remaining 78 patients, 69 completed the questionnaire (response rate 88%). Overall discomfort scores were higher in DSA compared to WB-MRA (mean 2.1 and 1.7, respectively; P = 0.06). In WB-MRA, overall discomfort was strongly correlated to feeling confined in the MRI system (R = 0.77, P< 0.001). In DSA, discomfort was strongly correlated to arterial puncture (R = 0.66, P< 0.001) and contrast injection (R = 0.65, P< 0.001). Injection of iodinated contrast agent at DSA was graded more uncomfortable than injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent at WB-MRA (mean 2.1 vs. 1.5, respectively; P<0.001). Sixty-two patients (90%) were willing to repeat WB-MRA, and 64 patients (93%) would repeat DSA if they needed another vascular examination. Forty-one patients preferred WB-MRA (60%), 12 patients preferred DSA (17%), and 16 patients had no preference (23%). Patient preference of WB-MRA over DSA was statistically significant (P< 0.001). Conclusion: Patient acceptance of WB-MRA is superior to that of DSA in patients with PAD, with the majority of patients preferring WB-MRA.

U2 - 10.3109/02841850903482893

DO - 10.3109/02841850903482893

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0284-1851

VL - 51

SP - 277

EP - 283

JO - Acta Radiologica

JF - Acta Radiologica

IS - 3

ER -