Cargando…

Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy. METHODS: 159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn’s disease, prospec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miles, Anne, Bhatnagar, Gauraang, Halligan, Steve, Gupta, Arun, Tolan, Damian, Zealley, Ian, Taylor, Stuart A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30128615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2
_version_ 1783417485238730752
author Miles, Anne
Bhatnagar, Gauraang
Halligan, Steve
Gupta, Arun
Tolan, Damian
Zealley, Ian
Taylor, Stuart A.
author_facet Miles, Anne
Bhatnagar, Gauraang
Halligan, Steve
Gupta, Arun
Tolan, Damian
Zealley, Ian
Taylor, Stuart A.
author_sort Miles, Anne
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy. METHODS: 159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn’s disease, prospectively recruited to a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and US completed an experience questionnaire on the burden and acceptability of small bowel investigations between December 2013 and September 2016. Acceptability, recovery time, scan burden and willingness to repeat the test were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests; and group differences in scan burden with Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. RESULTS: Overall, 128 (88%) patients rated MRE as very or fairly acceptable, lower than US (144, 99%; p < 0.001), but greater than colonoscopy (60, 60%; p < 0.001). MRE recovery time was longer than US (p < 0.001), but shorter than colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Patients were less willing to undergo MRE again than US (127 vs. 133, 91% vs. 99%; p = 0.012), but more willing than for colonoscopy (68, 75%; p = 0.017). MRE generated greater burden than US (p < 0.001), although burden scores were low. Younger age and emotional distress were associated with greater MRE and US burden. Higher MRE discomfort was associated with patient preference for US (p = 0.053). Patients rated test accuracy as more important than scan discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: MRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden. KEY POINTS: • MRE and US are rated as acceptable by most patients and superior to colonoscopy. • MRE generates significantly greater burden and longer recovery times than US, particularly in younger patients and those with high levels of emotional distress. • Most patients prefer the experience of undergoing US than MRE; however, patients rate test accuracy as more importance than scan burden. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6510862
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65108622019-05-28 Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden Miles, Anne Bhatnagar, Gauraang Halligan, Steve Gupta, Arun Tolan, Damian Zealley, Ian Taylor, Stuart A. Eur Radiol Gastrointestinal OBJECTIVES: To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy. METHODS: 159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn’s disease, prospectively recruited to a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and US completed an experience questionnaire on the burden and acceptability of small bowel investigations between December 2013 and September 2016. Acceptability, recovery time, scan burden and willingness to repeat the test were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests; and group differences in scan burden with Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. RESULTS: Overall, 128 (88%) patients rated MRE as very or fairly acceptable, lower than US (144, 99%; p < 0.001), but greater than colonoscopy (60, 60%; p < 0.001). MRE recovery time was longer than US (p < 0.001), but shorter than colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Patients were less willing to undergo MRE again than US (127 vs. 133, 91% vs. 99%; p = 0.012), but more willing than for colonoscopy (68, 75%; p = 0.017). MRE generated greater burden than US (p < 0.001), although burden scores were low. Younger age and emotional distress were associated with greater MRE and US burden. Higher MRE discomfort was associated with patient preference for US (p = 0.053). Patients rated test accuracy as more important than scan discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: MRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden. KEY POINTS: • MRE and US are rated as acceptable by most patients and superior to colonoscopy. • MRE generates significantly greater burden and longer recovery times than US, particularly in younger patients and those with high levels of emotional distress. • Most patients prefer the experience of undergoing US than MRE; however, patients rate test accuracy as more importance than scan burden. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-08-20 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6510862/ /pubmed/30128615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Gastrointestinal
Miles, Anne
Bhatnagar, Gauraang
Halligan, Steve
Gupta, Arun
Tolan, Damian
Zealley, Ian
Taylor, Stuart A.
Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
title Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
title_full Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
title_fullStr Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
title_full_unstemmed Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
title_short Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
title_sort magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden
topic Gastrointestinal
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30128615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5661-2
work_keys_str_mv AT milesanne magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT bhatnagargauraang magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT halligansteve magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT guptaarun magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT tolandamian magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT zealleyian magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT taylorstuarta magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden
AT magneticresonanceenterographysmallbowelultrasoundandcolonoscopytodiagnoseandstagecrohnsdiseasepatientacceptabilityandperceivedburden