Keisuke Nitta1, Chiaki Tominaga1, Koji Matsumoto1, Hajime Yokota2, Yoshitada Masuda1, and Takashi Uno2
1Department of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan, 2Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan
Synopsis
Patient
anxiety could be a risk factor for adverse reaction to contrast agents.
We hypothesized that a patient-friendly audiovisual system in the MR scanner
room had a relaxing effect on patients and the occurrence of adverse reactions.
As a result, the patient-friendly audiovisual system compared to the standard
system reduced contrast agents reaction. Thus, this system may reduce adverse
reaction in patients by providing a more patient-centered MRI examination
environment.
Summary of Main Findings
A patient-friendly AV system was shown to reduce
contrast agents reaction in many patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI
examination compared to the standard system by providing a more
patient-centered MRI examination environment.Introduction
Patient anxiety
could be a risk factor for adverse reaction to contrast agents [1]. Many patients experience anxiety, not
limited to claustrophobia, before magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination.
Thus, the improvement of the patient experience during MRI examination
(e.g., reduction of noise and feeling of confinement) is essential. A patient-friendly audiovisual (AV) system
(Ambient Experience, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) provides an AV
imagery environment that features varying light conditions and individually
selected visual wall displays with background sound effects. A previous report
investigated the effects of exposure to a similar ambient environment in the
waiting area and patient rooms of a pediatric emergency department and
demonstrated that passive distractions using ambient lighting can reduce pain
and anxiety in patients [2]. We hypothesized that patient anxiety could be
reduced through passive distraction using the patient-friendly AV system, which
would reduce the occurrence of adverse reaction. Therefore, we performed
prospective observational study on the adverse reaction rate with and without the
patient-friendly AV system.Methods
Subject: A review of the radiology information system
databases identified 17541 outpatients (8899 female and 8642 men; median age, 62.4 years
[range, 11–86 years]) who underwent head or/and neck contrast-enhanced
(CE) MRI examination between January 2016 and September 2021. All patients were
categorized into AV group with the patient-friendly AV system and control group
without AV system.
MRI examination: MRI was performed on a 3.0-T or 1.5-T unit using a head- or head and neck-phased
array coil. The
patient-friendly AV system featured a unique ambient light experience; Figure 1
shows the MRI environment. The patient-friendly AV system had overhead lighting
that cycled through a spectrum of colors and intensities on a fixed schedule.
On entering the gantry of the
MRI scanner, patients could see the video projected on the light-emitting diode
(LED) monitor via a prism mirror installed on the head coil. The progress of
the examination was also displayed on the monitor, and the patient could
confirm the end time. Furthermore, the patients could use headphones to listen
to music corresponding to the projected image.
Evaluation: We investigated age, gender, previous
history of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) reaction, and prevalence of adverse reactions in both groups. In
patients with adverse reaction, GBCA, and magnetic field strength, adverse
reaction grade, and symptoms were additionally investigated.
Statistical analyses: The Mann-Whitney U test
was used to compare age between the AV and control groups. Fisher's exact test
was used to compare sex, previous history of GBCA reaction, prevalence of adverse reaction, GBCA, magnetic
field strength, and adverse reaction grade between the AV and control groups.
Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.Results
Evaluated 17541 patients
(AV, 5810; control, 11731), of which 123 patients (AV, 23 (0.40%); control, 100(0.85%))
had contrast agents reaction. Table 1
summarizes patient demographics. There was no bias between the AV and control groups in age, sex, previous
history of GBCA reaction.
Comparison of adverse reactions in the AV group and control is summarized in
Table 2. Significant differences were observed in prevalence of adverse
reactions of the two groups (odds ratio = 0.46, P = 0.0005). Table 3 summarizes demographics of patients with adverse
reaction. There was no bias
between the AV and control groups in age, sex, magnetic field strength, GBCA, and adverse
reaction grade of the two groups.Discussion
We
found that the patient-friendly AV system did have a significant contrast agents
reaction-reducing effect compared to the standard system. Head and neck MRI
examination is most anxious because confinement feeling of a patient within the
head coil [3]. The patient-friendly AV system that allows they to not only
listen to music, but also see the monitor image and the remaining scan time may
be the only way to reduce the
patient anxiety in the head and neck examination. Additionally, the
greatest predisposing risk factor for an adverse reaction to contrast agents is
a previous reaction [4]. There was no bias
between the AV and control groups for a history of GBCA reaction. Although, we
did not perform investigate on iodinated contrast media in this study.Conclusion
The patient-friendly AV system was shown to reduce
contrast agents reaction in many
patients undergoing CE-MRI
examination by providing a more patient-centered MRI examination
environment.Acknowledgements
The authors would
like to thank the staff of the Department of Radiology at Chiba University
Hospital for helping with the MRI examination.References
1.Lalli AF. Urographic contrast media reactions
and anxiety. Radiology. 1974;112:267-71.
2.Robinson PS,
Green J. Ambient versus traditional environment in pediatric emergency
department. HERD 2015;8:71–80.
3.Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA. Adult claustrophobia,
anxiety and sedation in MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;15:51-4.
4.ACR
Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR Manual on Contrast Media. Version 9,
2013.