Anja Teuber1, Benedikt Sundermann2, Harald Kugel2, Wolfram Schwindt2, Walter Heindel2, Jens Minnerup3, Udo Dannlowski4,5, Klaus Berger6, Heike Wersching6. 1. Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. anja.teuber@uni-muenster.de. 2. Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 3. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Marburg, Rudolf-Bultmann-Straße 8, 35039, Marburg, Germany. 6. Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation and protocol of cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the longitudinal BiDirect study and to report rates of study participation as well as management of incidental findings. METHODS: Data came from the BiDirect study that investigates the relationship between depression and arteriosclerosis and comprises 2258 participants in three cohorts: 999 patients with depression, 347 patients with manifest cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 912 population-based controls. The study program includes MRI of the brain. Reasons for non-participation were systematically collected. Incidental findings were categorized and disclosed according to clinical relevance. RESULTS: At baseline 2176 participants were offered MRI, of whom 1453 (67 %) completed it. Reasons for non-participation differed according to cohort, age and gender with controls showing the highest participation rate of 79 %. Patient cohorts had higher refusal rates and CVD patients a high prevalence of contraindications. In the first follow-up examination 69 % of participating subjects completed MRI. Incidental findings were disclosed to 246 participants (17 %). The majority of incidental findings were extensive white matter hyperintensities requiring further diagnostic work-up. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about subjects and sensible definition of incidental findings are crucial for large-scale imaging projects. Our data offer practical and concrete information for the design of future studies. KEY POINTS: • Willingness to participate in MRI is generally high, also in follow-up examinations. • Rates of refusal and prevalence of contraindications differ according to subject characteristics. • Extensive white matter hyperintensities considerably increase the disclosure rates of incidental findings. • MRI workflow requires continuous case-by-case handling by an interdisciplinary team.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation and protocol of cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the longitudinal BiDirect study and to report rates of study participation as well as management of incidental findings. METHODS: Data came from the BiDirect study that investigates the relationship between depression and arteriosclerosis and comprises 2258 participants in three cohorts: 999 patients with depression, 347 patients with manifest cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 912 population-based controls. The study program includes MRI of the brain. Reasons for non-participation were systematically collected. Incidental findings were categorized and disclosed according to clinical relevance. RESULTS: At baseline 2176 participants were offered MRI, of whom 1453 (67 %) completed it. Reasons for non-participation differed according to cohort, age and gender with controls showing the highest participation rate of 79 %. Patient cohorts had higher refusal rates and CVD patients a high prevalence of contraindications. In the first follow-up examination 69 % of participating subjects completed MRI. Incidental findings were disclosed to 246 participants (17 %). The majority of incidental findings were extensive white matter hyperintensities requiring further diagnostic work-up. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about subjects and sensible definition of incidental findings are crucial for large-scale imaging projects. Our data offer practical and concrete information for the design of future studies. KEY POINTS: • Willingness to participate in MRI is generally high, also in follow-up examinations. • Rates of refusal and prevalence of contraindications differ according to subject characteristics. • Extensive white matter hyperintensities considerably increase the disclosure rates of incidental findings. • MRI workflow requires continuous case-by-case handling by an interdisciplinary team.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cohort studies; Contraindications; Incidental findings; Magnetic resonance imaging; Refusal to participate
Authors: J Illes; M P Kirschen; E Edwards; P Bandettini; M K Cho; P J Ford; G H Glover; J Kulynych; R Macklin; D B Michael; S M Wolf; T Grabowski; B Seto Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Katrin Hegenscheid; Pia Erdmann; Thomas Kohlmann; Martin Langanke; Henry Völzke; Ralf Puls; Heinrich Assel; Reiner Biffar; Hans Jörgen Grabe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charles DeCarli; Joseph Massaro; Danielle Harvey; John Hald; Mats Tullberg; Rhoda Au; Alexa Beiser; Ralph D'Agostino; Philip A Wolf Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: J M Shoemaker; M T Holdsworth; C Aine; V D Calhoun; R de La Garza; S W Feldstein Ewing; R Hayek; A R Mayer; K A Kiehl; L E Petree; P Sanjuan; A Scott; J Stephen; J P Phillips Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Mirjam I Geerlings; Auke P A Appelman; Koen L Vincken; Ale Algra; Theo D Witkamp; Willem P T M Mali; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Renée de Mutsert; Martin den Heijer; Ton Johannes Rabelink; Johannes Willem Adriaan Smit; Johannes Anthonius Romijn; Johan Wouter Jukema; Albert de Roos; Christa Maria Cobbaert; Margreet Kloppenburg; Saskia le Cessie; Saskia Middeldorp; Frits Richard Rosendaal Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Claas Flint; Katharina Förster; Sophie A Koser; Carsten Konrad; Pienie Zwitserlood; Klaus Berger; Marco Hermesdorf; Tilo Kircher; Igor Nenadic; Axel Krug; Bernhard T Baune; Katharina Dohm; Ronny Redlich; Nils Opel; Volker Arolt; Tim Hahn; Xiaoyi Jiang; Udo Dannlowski; Dominik Grotegerd Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 7.853