Tolerance of MRI vs. SPECT myocardial perfusion studies—A patient survey

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.