Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > International Angiology 2003 December;22(4) > International Angiology 2003 December;22(4):407-13

CURRENT ISSUEINTERNATIONAL ANGIOLOGY

A Journal on Angiology


Official Journal of the International Union of Angiology, the International Union of Phlebology and the Central European Vascular Forum
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


International Angiology 2003 December;22(4):407-13

language: English

Patient preferences for follow-up methods after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Engellau L. 1, Larsson E.-M. 1, Norgren L. 2

1 Depart­ment of Radiol­o­gy, Lund Uni­ver­sity Hos­pi­tal, Lund, Swe­den
2 Depart­ment of Vas­cu­lar Dis­eas­es, Lund Uni­ver­sity, Malmö Uni­ver­sity Hos­pi­tal, Malmö, Swe­den


PDF  REPRINTS


Aim. A fun­da­men­tal and influen­tial dif­fer­ence ­between open and endo­vas­cu­lar ­repair of abdom­i­nal aor­tic aneu­rysms is the cen­tral role of imag­ing after endo­vas­cu­lar ­repair. Will­ing­ness of the ­patient to ­return for fur­ther imag­ing is an impor­tant fac­tor in choos­ing the meth­od for fol­low-up. This study was under­tak­en to ­assess the sub­jec­tive expe­ri­enc­es of ­patients under­go­ing mag­net­ic res­o­nance imag­ing with con­trast ­enhanced MR angio­gra­phy, com­put­ed tomog­ra­phy and angio­gra­phy (DSA) after endo­vas­cu­lar ­repair of abdom­i­nal aor­tic aneu­rysms.
Meth­ods. In a pros­pec­tive study, 24 con­sec­u­tive ­patients after endo­vas­cu­lar ­repair of abdom­i­nal aor­tic aneu­rysms were invit­ed to ­answer a ques­tion­naire to qual­ita­tive­ly inves­ti­gate the ­patient pref­er­enc­es for the fol­low-up meth­ods, mag­net­ic res­o­nance imag­ing with con­trast ­enhanced MR angio­gra­phy, com­put­ed tomog­ra­phy and DSA. Nine­teen ­patients (79%) ­answered. The ques­tion­naire was con­struct­ed accord­ing to the prin­ci­ples and meth­ods in nurs­ing ­research and was devel­oped as ­closed-ended mul­ti­ple-­choice ques­tions with 4 alter­na­tives, from most favor­able to least favor­able. The items of the ques­tion­naire were based on inter­views with radiog­ra­phers in ­charge of each modal­ity and con­cerned the most com­mon ­patient expe­ri­enc­es.
­Results. The over­all ­patient expe­ri­ence of mag­net­ic res­o­nance imag­ing with con­trast ­enhanced MR angio­gra­phy was more unpleas­ant than com­put­ed tomog­ra­phy.
Con­clu­sion. The over­all ­patient expe­ri­ence ­showed no dif­fer­enc­es ­between mag­net­ic res­o­nance imag­ing with con­trast ­enhanced MR angio­gra­phy and DSA, or ­between com­put­ed tomog­ra­phy and DSA.

top of page