I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
Rivista di Angiologia
Official Journal of the , the International Union of Phlebology and the
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899
International Angiology 2003 December;22(4):407-13
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
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.