M P van der Paardt1, T N Boellaard2, F M Zijta3, L C Baak4, A C T M Depla5, E Dekker6, A J Nederveen7, S Bipat8, J Stoker9. 1. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.p.vanderpaardt@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.n.boellaard@amc.uva.nl. 3. Department of Radiology, Medisch Centrum Haaglanden, Den Haag, The Netherlands. Electronic address: fmzijta@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.c.baak@olvg.nl. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Slotervaartziekenhuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: actm.depla@slz.nl. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.dekker@amc.uva.nl. 7. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.j.nederveen@amc.uva.nl. 8. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.bipat@amc.uva.nl. 9. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.stoker@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient burden and preferences for MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy. METHODS: Symptomatic patients were consecutively recruited to undergo MR colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation and a limited bowel preparation followed within four weeks by colonoscopy with a standard bowel cleansing preparation. Four questionnaires regarding burden (on a five-point scale) and preferences (on a seven-point scale) were addressed after MR colonography and colonoscopy and five weeks after colonoscopy. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (47 men, 52 women; mean age 62.3, SD 8.7) were included. None of the patients experienced severe or extreme burden from the MR colonography bowel preparation compared to 31.5% of the patients for the colonoscopy bowel preparation. Colonoscopy was rated more burdensome (25.6% severe or extreme burden) compared to MR colonography (5.2% severe or extreme burden) (P<0.0001). When discarding the bowel preparations, the examinations were rated equally burdensome (P=0.35). The majority of patients (61.4%) preferred MR colonography compared to colonoscopy (29.5%) immediately after the examinations and five weeks later (57.0% versus 39.5%). CONCLUSION: MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation demonstrated less burden compared to colonoscopy. The majority of patients preferred MR colonography over colonoscopy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient burden and preferences for MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy. METHODS: Symptomatic patients were consecutively recruited to undergo MR colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation and a limited bowel preparation followed within four weeks by colonoscopy with a standard bowel cleansing preparation. Four questionnaires regarding burden (on a five-point scale) and preferences (on a seven-point scale) were addressed after MR colonography and colonoscopy and five weeks after colonoscopy. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (47 men, 52 women; mean age 62.3, SD 8.7) were included. None of the patients experienced severe or extreme burden from the MR colonography bowel preparation compared to 31.5% of the patients for the colonoscopy bowel preparation. Colonoscopy was rated more burdensome (25.6% severe or extreme burden) compared to MR colonography (5.2% severe or extreme burden) (P<0.0001). When discarding the bowel preparations, the examinations were rated equally burdensome (P=0.35). The majority of patients (61.4%) preferred MR colonography compared to colonoscopy (29.5%) immediately after the examinations and five weeks later (57.0% versus 39.5%). CONCLUSION: MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation demonstrated less burden compared to colonoscopy. The majority of patients preferred MR colonography over colonoscopy.