These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Patient acceptance of whole-body magnetic resonance angiography: A prospective questionnaire study.
    Author: Nielsen YW, Eiberg JP, Løgager VB, Just S, Schroeder TV, Thomsen HS.
    Journal: Acta Radiol; 2010 Apr; 51(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 20092370.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]