Cargando…

Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Claustrophobia is a common problem precluding MR imaging. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner is superior in alleviating claustrophobia. METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Enders, Judith, Zimmermann, Elke, Rief, Matthias, Martus, Peter, Klingebiel, Randolf, Asbach, Patrick, Klessen, Christian, Diederichs, Gerd, Wagner, Moritz, Teichgräber, Ulf, Bengner, Thomas, Hamm, Bernd, Dewey, Marc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161742/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21887259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023494
_version_ 1782210728831221760
author Enders, Judith
Zimmermann, Elke
Rief, Matthias
Martus, Peter
Klingebiel, Randolf
Asbach, Patrick
Klessen, Christian
Diederichs, Gerd
Wagner, Moritz
Teichgräber, Ulf
Bengner, Thomas
Hamm, Bernd
Dewey, Marc
author_facet Enders, Judith
Zimmermann, Elke
Rief, Matthias
Martus, Peter
Klingebiel, Randolf
Asbach, Patrick
Klessen, Christian
Diederichs, Gerd
Wagner, Moritz
Teichgräber, Ulf
Bengner, Thomas
Hamm, Bernd
Dewey, Marc
author_sort Enders, Judith
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Claustrophobia is a common problem precluding MR imaging. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner is superior in alleviating claustrophobia. METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained to compare short-bore versus open MR. From June 2008 to August 2009, 174 patients (139 women; mean age = 53.1 [SD 12.8]) with an overall mean score of 2.4 (SD 0.7, range 0 to 4) on the Claustrophobia Questionnaire (CLQ) and a clinical indication for imaging, were randomly assigned to receive evaluation by open or by short-bore MR. The primary outcomes were incomplete MR examinations due to a claustrophobic event. Follow-up was conducted 7 months after MR imaging. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat strategy. RESULTS: With 33 claustrophobic events in the short-bore group (39% [95% confidence interval [CI] 28% to 50%) versus 23 in the open scanner group (26% [95% CI 18% to 37%]; P = 0.08) the difference was not significant. Patients with an event were in the examination room for 3.8 min (SD 4.4) in the short-bore and for 8.5 min (SD 7) in the open group (P = 0.004). This was due to an earlier occurrence of events in the short-bore group. The CLQ suffocation subscale was significantly associated with the occurrence of claustrophobic events (P = 0.003). New findings that explained symptoms were found in 69% of MR examinations and led to changes in medical treatment in 47% and surgery in 10% of patients. After 7 months, perceived claustrophobia increased in 32% of patients with events versus in only 11% of patients without events (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Even recent MR cannot prevent claustrophobia suggesting that further developments to create a more patient-centered MR scanner environment are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3161742
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31617422011-09-01 Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial Enders, Judith Zimmermann, Elke Rief, Matthias Martus, Peter Klingebiel, Randolf Asbach, Patrick Klessen, Christian Diederichs, Gerd Wagner, Moritz Teichgräber, Ulf Bengner, Thomas Hamm, Bernd Dewey, Marc PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Claustrophobia is a common problem precluding MR imaging. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner is superior in alleviating claustrophobia. METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained to compare short-bore versus open MR. From June 2008 to August 2009, 174 patients (139 women; mean age = 53.1 [SD 12.8]) with an overall mean score of 2.4 (SD 0.7, range 0 to 4) on the Claustrophobia Questionnaire (CLQ) and a clinical indication for imaging, were randomly assigned to receive evaluation by open or by short-bore MR. The primary outcomes were incomplete MR examinations due to a claustrophobic event. Follow-up was conducted 7 months after MR imaging. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat strategy. RESULTS: With 33 claustrophobic events in the short-bore group (39% [95% confidence interval [CI] 28% to 50%) versus 23 in the open scanner group (26% [95% CI 18% to 37%]; P = 0.08) the difference was not significant. Patients with an event were in the examination room for 3.8 min (SD 4.4) in the short-bore and for 8.5 min (SD 7) in the open group (P = 0.004). This was due to an earlier occurrence of events in the short-bore group. The CLQ suffocation subscale was significantly associated with the occurrence of claustrophobic events (P = 0.003). New findings that explained symptoms were found in 69% of MR examinations and led to changes in medical treatment in 47% and surgery in 10% of patients. After 7 months, perceived claustrophobia increased in 32% of patients with events versus in only 11% of patients without events (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Even recent MR cannot prevent claustrophobia suggesting that further developments to create a more patient-centered MR scanner environment are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806 Public Library of Science 2011-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3161742/ /pubmed/21887259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023494 Text en Enders et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Enders, Judith
Zimmermann, Elke
Rief, Matthias
Martus, Peter
Klingebiel, Randolf
Asbach, Patrick
Klessen, Christian
Diederichs, Gerd
Wagner, Moritz
Teichgräber, Ulf
Bengner, Thomas
Hamm, Bernd
Dewey, Marc
Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
title Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
title_short Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
title_sort reduction of claustrophobia with short-bore versus open magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161742/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21887259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023494
work_keys_str_mv AT endersjudith reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT zimmermannelke reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT riefmatthias reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT martuspeter reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT klingebielrandolf reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT asbachpatrick reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT klessenchristian reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT diederichsgerd reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT wagnermoritz reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT teichgraberulf reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bengnerthomas reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hammbernd reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT deweymarc reductionofclaustrophobiawithshortboreversusopenmagneticresonanceimagingarandomizedcontrolledtrial