MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance

Langhorst, Jost; Kühle, C.; Ajaj, Waleed; Nüfer, Michael; Barkhausen, Jörg; Michalsen, Andreas; Dobos, Gustav; Lauenstein, Thomas C.

doi:10.1002/ibd.20140

Cited by 56 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All the IBD patients had at least one previous experience of CC but despite this familiarity, they more frequently reported discomfort during CC. The reported beneficial effect of sedation was a common theme and supported by findings from similar samples [7]. However colonic distension with water during MRC was very unpleasant for some, although the differing degree between individuals was striking, ranging from ''a little pressure'' to ''unbearable''.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Patient acceptance is influenced by several factors, including test expectations, comfort, overall satisfaction and diagnostic performance. While it is assumed that patient acceptance of MRC is higher than colonoscopy, this is based on a limited number of studies [2][3][4][5][6][7]. For example, Achiam et al [2] reported that, in a cohort of 64 patients, 71% expressed preference for MRC as a future examination because it was less painful and unpleasant than CC.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient experiences of MR colonography and colonoscopy: a qualitative study

Hafeez

Wagner²,

Smith³

et al. 2012

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to apply qualitative techniques to assimilate data on patient experience and attitudes during MR colonography (MRC) and colonoscopy (CC). Methods: 18 patients (11 male, 8 female, median age 40.5 years), 10 of whom had known colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 8 who were under investigation for suspected colonic neoplasia (non-IBD), underwent MRC and conventional CC. Semistructured interviews were performed to assimilate test experiences and preferences, and themes were extracted using thematic analysis. Results: Thematic analysis identified three main themes: (i) physical experience, (ii) information provision and (iii) overall preference. Patients expressed mixed views about the physical experience of MRC but specifically identified water filling, breath holding and lying still as problematic. Anxiety was expressed regarding potential incontinence. Scanner noise interfered with the understanding of instructions, particularly amongst non-IBD patients. Non-IBD patients expressed greater anxiety over the delay in receiving the MRC report than IBD patients. In general MRI was considered as the more informative and safer investigation. Patients reported more physical discomfort during CC (notably IBD patients) related to air insufflation and colonoscopic manipulation but were more satisfied with the feedback they received. 10 patients (56%) stated an overall preference for MRC and 5 (28%) preferred CC. Reasons for preferences stated by the patients included discomfort, speed of the test, safety, perceived diagnostic ability and the ability to take biopsies. Conclusion: Experiences of MRC and CC are complex and influenced by clinical indication. Individuals place different weightings on the relative importance of test attributes including discomfort, noise, immobility, feedback, safety and fear of incontinence and this defines overall preference. Colonoscopy (CC) remains the reference standard for diagnosing colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and neoplasia. However there is considerable interest in potentially less invasive radiological alternatives with reduced risk of serious complications. Recent data suggest that MR colonography (MRC) achieves adequate sensitivity for detection and grading of inflammation [1] and is proposed as a safer, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy for monitoring and restaging of IBD.Although diagnostic performance is the major determinant for uptake of any radiological investigation, acceptability to patients is also an important consideration. This is especially relevant in IBD, given the need for repeated colonic examinations over the course of the disease. Patient acceptance is influenced by several factors, including test expectations, comfort, overall satisfaction and diagnostic performance. While it is assumed that patient acceptance of MRC is higher than colonoscopy, this is based on a limited number of studies [2][3][4][5][6][7]. For example, Achiam et al [2] reported that, in a cohort of 64 patients, 71% expressed preferen...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient experiences of MR colonography and colonoscopy: a qualitative study

Hafeez

Wagner²,

Smith³

et al. 2012

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, we deliberately focussed on T2-weighted images, which are universally easy to obtain (albeit with somewhat reduced resolution) and do not require intravenous contrast administration in this unwell and potentially septic patient population. Arguably the use of gadolinium would have been advantageous both for assessing extracolonic complications such as abscesses and as others have found, for quantifying colonic inflammation [14,27,28]. The use of contrast is relatively contraindicated in those with abnormal renal function (which is well described in acute colitis), and although most acute colitis patients could receive contrast safely, we wanted our protocol to be applicable to all irrespective of disease severity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Derivation of a T2-weighted MRI total colonic inflammation score (TCIS) for assessment of patients with severe acute inflammatory colitis—a preliminary study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another study found that a majority (75%) of the patients would still prefer MRC over CC, even if MRC was done with bowel purgation instead of fecal tagging [46]. However, in one smaller study it was found that 67% preferred CC, but only patients with inflammatory bowel disease who had previously experienced CC were included in this study [55].…”

Section: Patient Acceptancementioning

confidence: 95%