Purpose. To measure patients' preferences for magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and duplex ultrasound (US) in the imaging work-up of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Methods. Ninety-eight patients, who underwent both MR angiography and duplex US, received a questionnaire by mail and their preferences for imaging work-up were assessed in a telephone interview. The questionnaire consisted of one question on which imaging test they preferred, a rating scale score ranging from 0 (not bothersome at all) to 10 (extremely bothersome), and specific questions on whether patients experienced discomfort due to the imaging work-up. Responses were presented as means and frequencies, and differences were tested by non-parametric tests. Results. Half of the patient population (50%) had no preference for MR angiography or duplex US, 41% had a preference for MR angiography, and 9% had a preference for duplex US. The average rating scale scores for MR angiography (1.6) and duplex US (1.7) were not significantly different (p = 0.53). Four out of 98 (4%) patients responded that they experienced pain during the MR angiography versus 18 (18%)for duplex US (p = 0.001). Eight out of 98 (8%) patients responded that they were anxious during the MR angiography versus 1 (1%) for duplex US (p = 0.02). Conclusion. The results suggest that the majority of patients have no preference between MR angiography and duplex US in the diagnostic work-up of PAD. Among patients who do have a preference, MR angiography was preferred over duplex US.

Diagnostic work-up, Duplex ultrasound, Magnetic resonance, Patient preferences assessment, Peripheral arterial disease
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1078-5884(03)00387-3, hdl.handle.net/1765/67641
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy

Visser, K, Bosch, J.L.H.R, Leiner, I, Engelshoven, J.M, Passchier, J, & Hunink, M.G.M. (2003). Patients' preferences for MR angiography and duplex US in the work-up of peripheral arterial disease. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 26(5), 537–543. doi:10.1016/S1078-5884(03)00387-3