Abstract
Purpose
To compare patients' perceived satisfaction and tolerance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging.
Materials and Methods
A questionnaire was sent retrospectively to 41 patients who had undergone both SPECT and MRI myocardial perfusion scans at our institution. The questionnaire assessed SPECT and MRI separately, and in a separate section compared the tests directly. The answers were scored and analyzed for statistical significance by the use of Wilcoxon signed‐ranks and χ^2^ tests.
Results
Thirty‐five completed questionnaires were returned. In a direct comparison, 12 patients (34%) preferred MRI overall, nine (26%) preferred SPECT, and 14 (40%) expressed no preference. The ratings for the overall comfort of the scans were similar, with a score of 5.8 for SPECT and 5.7 for MRI (on a scale of 1–10). More patients stated a preference for MRI on scan comfort, duration, and safety (no statistical significance), but it was less well rated than SPECT for space on the scanner (P = 0.008). Three patients (9%) stated that they would not have an MRI scan again, while two patients (6%) said they would not repeat a SPECT scan.
Conclusion
MRI myocardial perfusion imaging represents an acceptable alternative to SPECT with respect to patient tolerance and satisfaction. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2004;19:410–416. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.