Aims Approximately 1% of the population that needs an MRI refuses or terminates it prematurely due to claustrophobia. Some researchers claim that 1.6% of patients finished the test prematurely due to claustrophobia, and, in addition, between 2.3 to 3.8% underwent conscious sedation. These procedures not only increase the risk of complications, but also the cost. The study aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of Immersive Entertainment Glasses (IEG) in the success of the performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and in the reduction of anxiety levels in patients who identify themselves as having claustrophobia. Methods A randomized clinical trial will be held at the Imaging Department in a tertiary University Hospital starting in 2021. Participants: patients who identify themselves as claustrophobic and should have a Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The sample will be made up of 206 individuals, divided between an intervention group and a control group expecting a 20% difference between the success of the test of the control and intervention group subjects. People who meet the inclusion criteria will be distributed into the control or intervention groups. The intervention group will use the Immersive Entertainment Glasses to perform the test and the control group will have the support of a nurse through educational techniques. Discussion Patients who report claustrophobia or fear of undergoing a Magnetic Resonance Imaging due to feeling confined or being unable to be inside the machine are referred to an open magnet scanner. This test entails inferior technical quality since open magnets have a low magnetic field, which limits the quality of the studies. Implementing techniques to help reduce claustrophobia can avoid some sedation or anesthesia and, in addition, in some cases without pharmacological assistance and with higher quality images, which will, in turn, improve their diagnosis. Trial registration: The protocol was registered with the number NCT0530413 on ClinicalTrials.gov
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diaz-Membrives et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: