Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2021 Jul;31(7):4483-4491.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07887-w. Epub 2021 Apr 15.

Audio-guided self-hypnosis for reduction of claustrophobia during MR imaging: results of an observational 2-group study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Audio-guided self-hypnosis for reduction of claustrophobia during MR imaging: results of an observational 2-group study

Adriane E Napp et al. Eur Radiol. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of audio-guided self-hypnosis on claustrophobia in a high-risk cohort undergoing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Methods: In this prospective observational 2-group study, 55 patients (69% female, mean age 53.6 ± 13.9) used self-hypnosis directly before imaging. Claustrophobia included premature termination, sedation, and coping actions. The claustrophobia questionnaire (CLQ) was completed before self-hypnosis and after MR imaging. Results were compared to a control cohort of 89 patients examined on the same open MR scanner using logistic regression for multivariate analysis. Furthermore, patients were asked about their preferences for future imaging.

Results: There was significantly fewer claustrophobia in the self-hypnosis group (16%; 9/55), compared with the control group (43%; 38/89; odds ratio .14; p = .001). Self-hypnosis patients also needed less sedation (2% vs 16%; 1/55 vs 14/89; odds ratio .1; p = .008) and non-sedation coping actions (13% vs 28%; 7/55 vs 25/89; odds ratio .3; p = .02). Self-hypnosis did not influence the CLQ results measured before and after MR imaging (p = .79). Self-hypnosis reduced the frequency of claustrophobia in the subgroup of patients above an established CLQ cut-off of .33 from 47% (37/78) to 18% (9/49; p = .002). In the subgroup below the CLQ cut-off of 0.33, there were no significant differences (0% vs 9%, 0/6 vs 1/11; p = 1.0). Most patients (67%; 35/52) preferred self-hypnosis for future MR examinations.

Conclusions: Self-hypnosis reduced claustrophobia in high-risk patients undergoing imaging in an open MR scanner and might reduce the need for sedation and non-sedation coping actions.

Key points: • Forty percent of the patients at high risk for claustrophobia may also experience a claustrophobic event in an open MR scanner. • Self-hypnosis while listening to an audio in the waiting room before the examination may reduce claustrophobic events in over 50% of patients with high risk for claustrophobia. • Self-hypnosis may also reduce the need for sedation and other time-consuming non-sedation coping actions and is preferred by high-risk patients for future examinations.

Keywords: Anxiety; Hypnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Phobic disorders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: activities not related to the present article: received institutional grants from Siemens Medical Solutions, GE Healthcare, Toshiba Medical Systems, and Philips Medical Systems

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of study inclusion in the non-hypnosis and the self-hypnosis cohorts. The cohort without self-hypnosis is a retrospectively evaluated patient population examined on the same MR scanner. In both cohorts, only the first examination was included. A total of 124 (25%) of 494 referred patients were excluded because they did not undergo an examination for different reasons or were scheduled twice. In the control cohort, a majority of patients were excluded due to invasive procedures or general poor health. In the self-hypnosis cohort, 10 (12%) of 87 patients were excluded because they refused to participate. Overall, 144 (29%) of 494 patients were included in the analysis. Given is the number of all noted claustrophobic events. *Further analysis only includes the most severe event per patient
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Frequency of claustrophobia (percentage of patients) in intervention and control groups. Overall, there were fewer claustrophobic events, non-sedation and sedation coping actions, and premature terminations in the self-hypnosis group compared to the control group

References

    1. Enders J, Zimmermann E, Rief M, et al. Reduction of claustrophobia with short-bore versus open magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2011;6:e23494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023494. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF. Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:1322–1327. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21147. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD, et al. Assessing the risks associated with MRI in patients with a pacemaker or defibrillator. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:755–764. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603265. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roguin A, Zviman MM, Meininger GR, et al. Modern pacemaker and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems can be magnetic resonance imaging safe: in vitro and in vivo assessment of safety and function at 1.5 T. Circulation. 2004;110:475–482. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000137121.28722.33. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Katz RC, Wilson L, Frazer N. Anxiety and its determinants in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1994;25:131–134. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(94)90005-1. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types