MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: Motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets

Bangard, Christopher; Paszek, Jennifer; Berg, Frank; Eyl, G; Kessler, Josef; Lackner, K.; Goßmann, Axel

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.012

Cited by 67 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[26]. Diagnostic value of recently produced "open" high field MRI scanners (1.0 T) is yet to be confirmed [27]. Technologies that enable MR sequences with low levels of noise are increasingly used, and a special attention is paid to their further development [28]- [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient’s Comfort and Technical Quality Exams at 1.5 and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Vujmilović¹,

Vujnović²,

Kovačević-Dragosavljević³

et al. 2016

OJRad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased interest of clinicians for using 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as imaging modality of choice for their patients, has been evident in the past few years. The aim of this study was to compare the technical quality of the obtained tomography using 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI, and to compare the subjective feeling of discomfort of patients and subjective acoustic noise experience during imaging using MRI at 3.0 T and 1.5 T. Brain MRI (1.5 and 3.0 T) was performed in 58 patients, according to a standardized protocol. All studies have been randomly described by independent two radiologists. The reference standard for the existence of technical artifact is established on the basis of both radiologists' consensus. We also compared the subjective feelings of the discomfort and acoustic noise during the both MRI (1.5 T and 3.0 T) exams. Artifacts were significantly more common during 3.0 T MRI in comparison with the 1.5 T MRI (χ 2 = 5.286, P < 0.05), as well as in male patients (χ 2 = 8.841, P < 0.05), and subjective assessments of discomfort and acoustic noise were higher in patients who underwent imaging using 3.0 T MRI, (χ 2 = 125.959, df = 1, P < 0.001) and in females (χ 2 = 195.449, df = 1, P < 0.001). Additional research is needed to prove that appropriate information for patients about the discomfort during 3.0 T MRI and their psychological preparation is very important element for optimal use of 3.0 T MRI in daily clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient’s Comfort and Technical Quality Exams at 1.5 and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Vujmilović¹,

Vujnović²,

Kovačević-Dragosavljević³

et al. 2016

OJRad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternative MRI designs such as the open-bore style magnet (2) have been used to reduce anxiety and claustrophobia, but the images produced are inferior in terms of image quality and diagnostic accuracy compared to closed-bore 1.5 T systems. Short-bore magnets with reduced acoustic noise have also been successful in reducing claustrophobia (9); however, these systems can be more expensive, have limited scanning capabilities, and decreased magnetic strength (2). Purchasing an A/V system at the approximate cost of $38,110 CAD would be a more cost-effective method for reducing sedations than the purchase of a new open-bore or short-bore magnet, which can total over $2 million CAD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These feelings are often described as claustrophobia-type reactions and can lead to termination of the procedure. The failure rate for incomplete MRI examinations due to claustrophobia is 5%-10% patients (2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of audio/visual systems on pediatric sedation in magnetic resonance imaging

Lemaire

Moran

Swan

2009

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the use of an audio/visual (A/V) system in pediatric patients as an alternative to sedation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of wait times, image quality, and patient experience. Materials and Methods:Pediatric MRI examinations from April 8 to August 11, 2008 were compared to those 1 year prior to the installation of the A/V system. Data collected included age, requisition receive date, scan date, and whether sedation was used. A posttest questionnaire was used to evaluate patient experience. Image quality was assessed by two radiologists.Results: Over the 4 months in 2008 there was an increase of 7.2% (115; P Ͻ 0.05) of pediatric patients scanned and a decrease of 15.4%, (67; P ϭ 0.32) requiring sedation. The average sedation wait time decreased by 33% (5.8 months) (P Ͻ 0.05). Overall, the most positively affected group was the 4 -10 years. The questionnaire resulted in 84% of participants expressing a positive reaction to the A/V system. Radiological evaluation revealed no changes in image quality between A/V users and sedates. Conclusion:The A/V system was a successful method to reduce patient motion and obtain a quality diagnostic MRI without the use of sedation in pediatric patients. It provided a safer option, a positive experience, and decreased wait times.

show abstract

“…However, these limitations have been taken into account in further technical development so that the newest generation of instruments can also be used with patients whose sinus rhythm is absent and, in some cases, who have atrial fibrillation [20 -22]. Claustrophobia associated with the instrument is frequently mentioned by patients in surveys [23]. However, the patients are often not aware of the difference between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT technology, and they cannot distinguish between the narrow gantry and long acquisition time of MRI and the substantially wider gantry and shorter acquisition time (a few seconds only) used in CT.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CT Coronary Angiography Versus Conventional Invasive Coronary Angiography – The View of the Referring Physician

Maurer¹,

Zimmermann²,

Hamm³

et al. 2014

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Assessment of experience gained by local referring physicians with the procedure of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in the everyday clinical routine. Materials and Methods: A 25-item questionnaire was sent to 179 physicians, who together had referred a total of 1986 patients for CCTA. They were asked about their experience to date with CCTA, the indications for coronary imaging, and their practice in referring patients for noninvasive CCTA or invasive catheter angiography. Results: 53 questionnaires (30?%) were assessable, corresponding to more than 72?% of the patients referred. Of the referring physicians who responded, 94?% saw a concrete advantage of CCTA in the treatment of patients, whereby 87?% were ?satisfied? or ?very satisfied? with the reporting. For excluding coronary heart disease (CHD) where there was a low pre-test probability of disease, the physicians considered CCTA to be superior to conventional coronary diagnosis (4.2 on a scale of 1???5) and vice versa for acute coronary syndrome (1.6 of 5). The main reasons for unsuitability of CCTA for CT diagnosis were claustrophobia and the absence of a sinus rhythm. The level of exposure to radiation in CCTA was estimated correctly by only 42?% of the referring physicians. 90?% of the physicians reported that their patients evaluated their coronary CT overall as ?positive? or ?neutral?, while 87?% of the physicians whose patients had undergone both procedures reported that the patients had experienced CCTA as the less disagreeable of the two. Conclusion: CCTA is accepted by the referring physicians as an alternative imaging procedure for the exclusion of CHD and received a predominantly positive assessment from both the referring physicians and the patients. Key points: ??A high percentage of referring physicians had positive experiences with noninvasive CT coronary angiography (CCTA) so far. ??CCTA is accepted by referring physicians as an alternative imaging procedure for the exclusion of coronary heart disease. ??Noninvasive CT coronary angiography is perceived by patients in direct comparison with conventional invasive coronary angiography as less disagreeable. Citation Format: ??Maurer MH, Zimmermann E, Hamm B et?al. CT Coronary Angiography Versus Conventional Invasive Coronary Angiography ? The View of the Referring Physician. Fortschr R?ntgenstr 2014; 186: 1102???1110

show abstract

MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: Motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets

Cited by 67 publications

References 20 publications

Patient’s Comfort and Technical Quality Exams at 1.5 and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Patient’s Comfort and Technical Quality Exams at 1.5 and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Impact of audio/visual systems on pediatric sedation in magnetic resonance imaging

CT Coronary Angiography Versus Conventional Invasive Coronary Angiography – The View of the Referring Physician

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About