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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |