Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2025 Sep 29;34(3):e0319. doi: 10.1097/RMR.0000000000000319. eCollection 2025 Oct 1.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for diagnosis but often induces anxiety, especially in claustrophobic patients, potentially affecting image quality. This study compared oxygen saturation, heart rate, and anxiety levels between claustrophobic and non-claustrophobic patients undergoing closed and open MRI in Erbil, Iraq.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The comparative study was conducted from October 2024 to April 2025 in the Radiology Departments of Consultant Medical City and Top Med Medical Complex Centers in Erbil using purposive sampling. The questionnaire contained 3 sections: sociodemographic variables, the Claustrophobia Questionnaire, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State Subscale. Physiological measures (oxygen saturation and heart rate) were recorded at 3 timepoints: pre-, mid-, and post-MRI. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, post hoc tests, and both univariate and multiple linear regression, using SPSS version 26.
RESULTS: A total of 125 participants were involved in the study. The mean anxiety score was moderate, with higher levels in claustrophobic patients. Claustrophobia scores also fell within the moderate range, indicating psychological discomfort during the MRI procedure. Physiological measurements showed that claustrophobic patients, particularly those undergoing closed MRI, experienced elevated heart rates and reduced oxygen saturation compared to non-claustrophobic individuals. Statistical analysis indicated a strong positive association between anxiety and claustrophobia, with scan entry direction, age, and sex also being significant predictors of claustrophobic responses.
CONCLUSIONS: Claustrophobic patients undergoing closed MRI experience increased anxiety and physiological distress. Open MRI systems and pre-scan anxiety screening are recommended to enhance patient comfort and diagnostic outcomes.
PMID:41004856 | DOI:10.1097/RMR.0000000000000319
