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

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of audio-guided self-hypnosis on claustrophobia in a high-risk cohort undergoing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS: In this prospective observational 2-group study, 55 patients (69% female, mean age 53.6 ± 13.9) used self-hypnosis directly before imaging. Claustrophobia included premature termination, sedation, and coping actions. The claustrophobia questionnaire (CLQ) was completed before self-hypnosis and after MR imaging. Results were compared to a control cohort of 89 patients examined on the same open MR scanner using logistic regression for multivariate analysis. Furthermore, patients were asked about their preferences for future imaging. RESULTS: There was significantly fewer claustrophobia in the self-hypnosis group (16%; 9/55), compared with the control group (43%; 38/89; odds ratio .14; p = .001). Self-hypnosis patients also needed less sedation (2% vs 16%; 1/55 vs 14/89; odds ratio .1; p = .008) and non-sedation coping actions (13% vs 28%; 7/55 vs 25/89; odds ratio .3; p = .02). Self-hypnosis did not influence the CLQ results measured before and after MR imaging (p = .79). Self-hypnosis reduced the frequency of claustrophobia in the subgroup of patients above an established CLQ cut-off of .33 from 47% (37/78) to 18% (9/49; p = .002). In the subgroup below the CLQ cut-off of 0.33, there were no significant differences (0% vs 9%, 0/6 vs 1/11; p = 1.0). Most patients (67%; 35/52) preferred self-hypnosis for future MR examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Self-hypnosis reduced claustrophobia in high-risk patients undergoing imaging in an open MR scanner and might reduce the need for sedation and non-sedation coping actions. KEY POINTS: • Forty percent of the patients at high risk for claustrophobia may also experience a claustrophobic event in an open MR scanner. • Self-hypnosis while listening to an audio in the waiting room before the examination may reduce claustrophobic events in over 50% of patients with high risk for claustrophobia. • Self-hypnosis may also reduce the need for sedation and other time-consuming non-sedation coping actions and is preferred by high-risk patients for future examinations.

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

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner designs claustrophobic patients prefer. MATERIAL/METHODS: We analyzed questionnaires completed by 160 patients at high risk for claustrophobia directly after a scan in either a short-bore or open panoramic scanner as part of a prospective randomized trial Enders et al (BMC Med Imaging 11:4, 2011). Scanner preferences were judged based on schematic drawings of four scanners. Information on the diagnostic performance of the depicted scanners was provided, too. RESULTS: A majority of patients suggested upright open (59/160, 36.9%) and open panoramic (53/160, 33.1%) before short-bore designs (26/160, 16.3%, for all p < 0.001) for future development. When asked about patients' preferred scanner choice for an upcoming examination, information about a better diagnostic performance of a short-bore scanner significantly improved its preference rates (from 6/160 to 49/160 or 3.8 to 30.5%, p < 0.001). Patients with a claustrophobic event preferred open designs significantly more often than patients without a claustrophobic event (p = 0.047). Patients scanned in a short-bore scanner in our trial preferred this design significantly more often (p = 0.003). Noise reduction (51/160, 31.9%), more space over the head (44/160, 27.5%), and overall more space (33/160, 20.6%) were the commonest suggested areas of improvement. CONCLUSION: Patients at high risk for claustrophobia visually prefer open- over short-bore MRI designs for further development. Education about a better diagnostic performance of a visually less-attractive scanner can increase its acceptance. Noise and space were of most concern for claustrophobic patients. This information can guide individual referral of claustrophobic patients to scanners and future scanner development. KEY POINTS: • Patients at high risk for claustrophobia visually favor the further development of open scanners as opposed to short- and closed-bore scanner designs. • Educating claustrophobic patients about a higher diagnostic performance of a short-bore scanner can significantly increase their acceptance of this otherwise visually less-attractive design. • A medical history of earlier claustrophobic events in a given MRI scanner type and focusing on the features "more space" and "noise reduction" can help to guide referral of patients who are at high risk for claustrophobia.

Image-guided Irreversible Electroporation of Localized Prostate Cancer: Functional and Oncologic Outcomes.

Background Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a nonthermal ablative method based on the formation of nanoscale defects in cell membranes leading to cell death. Clinical experience with the technique for treatment of prostate cancer remains limited. Purpose To evaluate urogenital toxicity and oncologic outcome of MRI-transrectal US fusion-guided IRE of localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods In this prospective study, men with biopsy-proven, treatment-naive, low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], ≤15 ng/mL; Gleason score, ≤3 + 4; clinical stage, ≤T2c; lesion size at multiparametric MRI, ≤20 mm) underwent focal MRI/transrectal US fusion-guided IRE between July 2014 and July 2017. Primary end point was the urogenital toxicity profile of focal IRE by using participant-reported questionnaires. Secondary end points were biochemical, histologic, and imaging measures of oncologic control. Analyses were performed by using nonparametric and χ2 test statistics. Results Thirty men were included (median age, 65.5 years); mean PSA level was 8.65 ng/mL and mean tumor size was 13.5 mm. One grade III adverse event (urethral stricture) was recorded. The proportion of men with erection sufficient for penetration was 83.3% (25 of 30) at baseline and 79.3% (23 of 29; P > .99) at 12 months. Leak-free and pad-free continence rate was 90% (27 of 30) at baseline and 86.2% (25 of 29; P > .99) at 12 months. Urogenital function remained stable at 12 months according to changes in the modified International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, or ICIQ-MLUTS, and the International Index of Erectile Function, or IIEF-5, questionnaires (P = .58 and P = .07, respectively). PSA level decreased from a baseline median value of 8.65 ng/mL (interquartile range, 5-11.4 ng/mL) to 2.35 ng/mL (interquartile range, 1-3.4 ng/mL) at 12 months (P < .001). At 6 months, 28 of 30 participants underwent posttreatment biopsy. The rate of in-field treatment failure was 17.9% (five of 28) as determined with multiparametric prostate MRI and targeted biopsies at 6 months. Conclusion After a median follow-up of 20 months, focal irreversible electroporation of localized prostate cancer was associated with low urogenital toxicity and promising oncologic outcomes. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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

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.

Reduction of claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: methods and design of the "CLAUSTRO" randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has been described as the most important medical innovation in the last 25 years. Over 80 million MR procedures are now performed each year and on average 2.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.0 to 2.5%) of all patients scheduled for MR imaging suffer from claustrophobia. Thus, prevention of MR imaging by claustrophobia is a common problem and approximately 2,000,000 MR procedures worldwide cannot be completed due to this situation. Patients with claustrophobic anxiety are more likely to be frightened and experience a feeling of confinement or being closed in during MR imaging. In these patients, conscious sedation and additional sequences (after sedation) may be necessary to complete the examinations. Further improvements in MR design appear to be essential to alleviate this situation and broaden the applicability of MR imaging. A more open scanner configuration might help reduce claustrophobic reactions while maintaining image quality and diagnostic accuracy. METHODS/DESIGN: We propose to analyze the rate of claustrophobic reactions, clinical utility, image quality, patient acceptance, and cost-effectiveness of an open MR scanner in a randomized comparison with a recently designed short-bore but closed scanner with 97% noise reduction. The primary aim of this study is thus to determine whether an open MR scanner can reduce claustrophobic reactions, thereby enabling more examinations of claustrophobic patients without incurring the safety issues associated with conscious sedation. In this manuscript we detail the methods and design of the prospective "CLAUSTRO" trial. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial will be the first direct comparison of open vertical and closed short-bore MR systems in regards to claustrophobia and image quality as well as diagnostic utility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00715806.

MRI-TRUS fusion for electrode positioning during irreversible electroporation for treatment of prostate cancer.

We aimed to introduce an approach for image-guided positioning of electrodes for irreversible electroporation (IRE) in patients with prostate cancer using a magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasonography (MRI-TRUS) fusion technique. In 10 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score ≤3+4 prostate cancer, 19 G electrodes were inserted into the prostate using a transperineal access. Magnetic resonance images of the prostate acquired before IRE were fused with transrectal ultrasound images acquired during IRE. The position of the ultrasound probe was tracked via a sensor and corresponding magnetic resonance images were calculated in real-time. While MRI allowed delineation of the target volume, the position of the electrodes could be visualized on ultrasound images; the distance between individual electrode pairs was measured. Based on these measurements the software installed on the IRE unit was able to calculate the voltage necessary to generate the electric field for ablation. Using contrast-enhanced ultrasound, changes in perfusion within the ablation zone after IRE were documented. This technique allowed positioning of the electrodes around the target volume under image guidance in all patients treated with IRE. The target lesion and a safety margin were covered within the estimated ablation zone. MRI-TRUS guidance for IRE combines the advantages of good visualization of the target lesion on MRI with the ability of ultrasound to acquire imaging in real-time with a mobile device.

High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to compare the image quality of spinal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed on a high-field horizontal open versus a short-bore MR scanner in a randomized controlled study setup. METHODS: Altogether, 93 (80% women, mean age 53) consecutive patients underwent spine imaging after random assignement to a 1-T horizontal open MR scanner with a vertical magnetic field or a 1.5-T short-bore MR scanner. This patient subset was part of a larger cohort. Image quality was assessed by determining qualitative parameters, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR), and quantitative contour sharpness. RESULTS: The image quality parameters were higher for short-bore MR imaging. Regarding all sequences, the relative differences were 39% for the mean overall qualitative image quality, 53% for the mean SNR values, and 34-37% for the quantitative contour sharpness (P<0.0001). The CNR values were also higher for images obtained with the short-bore MR scanner. No sequence was of very poor (nondiagnostic) image quality. Scanning times were significantly longer for examinations performed on the open MR scanner (mean: 32±22 min versus 20±9 min; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled comparison of spinal MR imaging with an open versus a short-bore scanner, short-bore MR imaging revealed considerably higher image quality with shorter scanning times. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806.

Reduction of claustrophobia with short-bore versus open magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Claustrophobia is a common problem precluding MR imaging. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner is superior in alleviating claustrophobia. METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained to compare short-bore versus open MR. From June 2008 to August 2009, 174 patients (139 women; mean age = 53.1 [SD 12.8]) with an overall mean score of 2.4 (SD 0.7, range 0 to 4) on the Claustrophobia Questionnaire (CLQ) and a clinical indication for imaging, were randomly assigned to receive evaluation by open or by short-bore MR. The primary outcomes were incomplete MR examinations due to a claustrophobic event. Follow-up was conducted 7 months after MR imaging. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat strategy. RESULTS: With 33 claustrophobic events in the short-bore group (39% [95% confidence interval [CI] 28% to 50%) versus 23 in the open scanner group (26% [95% CI 18% to 37%]; P = 0.08) the difference was not significant. Patients with an event were in the examination room for 3.8 min (SD 4.4) in the short-bore and for 8.5 min (SD 7) in the open group (P = 0.004). This was due to an earlier occurrence of events in the short-bore group. The CLQ suffocation subscale was significantly associated with the occurrence of claustrophobic events (P = 0.003). New findings that explained symptoms were found in 69% of MR examinations and led to changes in medical treatment in 47% and surgery in 10% of patients. After 7 months, perceived claustrophobia increased in 32% of patients with events versus in only 11% of patients without events (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Even recent MR cannot prevent claustrophobia suggesting that further developments to create a more patient-centered MR scanner environment are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806.