Literature DB >> 27892781

Analysis and Prediction of Claustrophobia during MR Imaging with the Claustrophobia Questionnaire: An Observational Prospective 18-month Single-Center Study of 6500 Patients.

Adriane E Napp1, Judith Enders1, Robert Roehle1, Gerd Diederichs1, Matthias Rief1, Elke Zimmermann1, Peter Martus1, Marc Dewey1.   

Abstract

Purpose To analyze claustrophobia during magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and to explore the potential of the 26-item claustrophobia questionnaire (CLQ) (range, 0-4) as a screening tool in patients scheduled for MR imaging. Materials and Methods The study received institutional review board approval, and patients in the CLQ cohort provided informed consent. A total of 6520 consecutive patients were included. Overall, 4288 patients completed the CLQ before MR imaging (CLQ cohort), and 2232 patients underwent MR imaging without having completed the CLQ (non-CLQ cohort). Claustrophobic events were recorded by the staff. Results The CLQ mean score in patients with claustrophobic events (1.48 ± 0.93) was significantly higher (P < .01) than in the group without claustrophobic events (0.60 ± 0.5). The CLQ cutoff value was 0.16 for men and 0.56 for women. Because of the low prevalence, negative predictive values of CLQ cutoff values (men, 0.99 [573 of 582]; women, 0.97 [745 of 766]) were higher than positive predictive values (men, 0.01 [88 of 582]; women, 0.16 [192 of 1186]). The overall claustrophobic event rate was 9.8% (640 of 6520; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.1, 10.6). The CLQ did not induce claustrophobic events because the event rate in the CLQ cohort was significantly lower than that in the non-CLQ cohort, as shown by the adjusted odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.96). Conclusion The CLQ is a suitable screening tool for the absence of a subsequent claustrophobic event. Furthermore, while it is possible to identify patients with a considerable risk of claustrophobia, prediction in individual patients is not possible. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27892781     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  10 in total

1.  Impact of the pulmonary vein orifice area assessed using intracardiac echocardiography on the outcome of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Takashi Nakashima; Masanori Kawasaki; Hiroyuki Toyoshi; Nobuhiro Takasugi; Tomoki Kubota; Hiromitsu Kanamori; Hiroaki Ushikoshi; Takuma Aoyama; Kazuhiko Nishigaki; Shinya Minatoguchi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  Imaging of heart disease in women: review and case presentation.

Authors:  Nidaa Mikail; Alexia Rossi; Susan Bengs; Ahmed Haider; Barbara E Stähli; Angela Portmann; Alessio Imperiale; Valerie Treyer; Alexander Meisel; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Michael Messerli; Vera Regitz-Zagrosek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny R Buechel; Cathérine Gebhard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Point-of-care magnetic resonance technology to measure liver fat: Phantom and first-in-human pilot study.

Authors:  Mark Barahman; Eduardo Grunvald; Pablo J Prado; Alejandro Bussandri; Walter C Henderson; Tanya Wolfson; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 3.737

4.  Association of Claustrophobia and Anxiety with Cast Intolerance in Patients with Extremity Injuries.

Authors:  Ekaterina Urch; Julia M Kim; Schneider K Rancy; Eliana B Saltzman; Steve K Lee; Scott W Wolfe
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-07-28

5.  Audio-guided self-hypnosis for reduction of claustrophobia during MR imaging: results of an observational 2-group study.

Authors:  Adriane E Napp; Torsten Diekhoff; Olf Stoiber; Judith Enders; Gerd Diederichs; Peter Martus; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer without treatment planning MRI.

Authors:  Katherine Amarell; Anna Jaysing; Christopher Mendez; Jonathan A Haas; Seth R Blacksburg; Aaron E Katz; Astrid Sanchez; Angela Tong; Todd Carpenter; Matthew Witten; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in characterization of inconclusive cervical lymph nodes: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Paul Spiesecke; Konrad Neumann; Katharina Wakonig; Markus H Lerchbaumer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  A systematic review of person-centred adjustments to facilitate magnetic resonance imaging for autistic patients without the use of sedation or anaesthesia.

Authors:  Nikolaos Stogiannos; Sarah Carlier; Jane M Harvey-Lloyd; Andrea Brammer; Barbara Nugent; Karen Cleaver; Jonathan P McNulty; Cláudia Sá Dos Reis; Christina Malamateniou
Journal:  Autism       Date:  2021-12-28

9.  Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study.

Authors:  Elisa Iwan; Jinhua Yang; Judith Enders; Adriane Elisabeth Napp; Matthias Rief; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Derealization and motion-perception related to repeated exposure to 3T Magnetic Resonance Image scanner in healthy adults.

Authors:  Sergio Martínez-Gallardo; José A Miguel-Puga; Davis Cooper-Bribiesca; Adolfo M Bronstein; Kathrine Jáuregui-Renaud
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.354

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.