Literature DB >> 12042947

Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue?

M Thomeer1, D Bielen, D Vanbeckevoort, S Dymarkowski, A Gevers, P Rutgeerts, M Hiele, E Van Cutsem, G Marchal.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the discomfort associated with CT colonography compared with colonoscopy and bowel purgation cleansing, and to evaluate patient preference between CT colonography and colonoscopy. In a total of 124 patients, scheduled for multidetector virtual CT colonography and diagnostic colonoscopy, patient acceptance and future preference were assessed during the different steps of the procedure (colon preparation, CT examination, and conventional colonoscopy). Patients who described contradictory findings between the degree of discomfort and their preference regarding follow-up examinations were retrospectively reinterviewed regarding the reason for this discrepancy. Colonoscopy was graded slightly more uncomfortable than virtual CT colonography, but the preparation was clearly the most uncomfortable part of the procedure. Concerning their preference regarding follow-up examinations, 71% of the patients preferred virtual CT colonography, 24% preferred colonoscopy, and 5% had no preference. Twenty-eight percent of the patients preferred virtual CT colonography despite that they thought it was equally or even more uncomfortable than colonoscopy. This was mainly due to the faster procedure (17 patients), the lower physical challenge (14 patients), and the lack of sedation (12 patients) of virtual CT colonography. Factors other than the discomfort related to the examinations play an important role in the patient's preference for virtual CT colonography, namely the faster procedure, the lower physical challenge, and the lack of sedation. Since the preparation plays a major decisive factor in the patient acceptance of virtual CT colonography, more attention should be given to fecal tagging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12042947     DOI: 10.1007/s003300101082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  27 in total

1.  The virtuosity of virtuality or how real is virtual colonography.

Authors:  H Herfarth; A G Schreyer
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Virtual endoscopy of the nasopharynx in the evaluation of its normal anatomy and alterations due to lymphoid hyperplasia: preliminary report.

Authors:  Ignazio Pandolfo; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Sergio Vinci; Ignazio Salamone; Giovanni Colletti; Alfredo Blandino
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-09       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity.

Authors:  W M Ajaj; T C Lauenstein; G Pelster; G Gerken; S G Ruehm; J F Debatin; S C Goehde
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Utility of dark-lumen MR colonography for the assessment of extra-colonic organs.

Authors:  Waleed Ajaj; Stefan G Ruehm; Susanne C Ladd; Guido Gerken; Mathias Goyen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Steve Halligan; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  CT colonography: an update.

Authors:  Andrik J Aschoff; Andrea S Ernst; Hans-Juergen Brambs; Markus S Juchems
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice.

Authors:  Carmen Zueco Zueco; Carolina Sobrido Sampedro; Juan D Corroto; Paula Rodriguez Fernández; Manuela Fontanillo Fontanillo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Rob Boer; Janneke Wilschut; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography.

Authors:  Delia Campanella; Lia Morra; Silvia Delsanto; Vincenzo Tartaglia; Roberto Asnaghi; Alberto Bert; Emanuele Neri; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.