IPM Take
Precision cardiology depends increasingly on sophisticated imaging, but even the best diagnostic technology has little value if the patient cannot tolerate the examination.
That is what makes a small quality-improvement project from UCHealth more interesting than its VR headset might initially suggest. Among 105 people offered virtual reality during cardiac PET/CT because of anxiety or claustrophobia, 95% completed the ordered study and 80% kept the headset on for the entire procedure. More than three-quarters described the experience positively.
The intervention was also relatively inexpensive. UCHealth reported an initial system cost of $4,387 and monthly costs of $168, compared with an estimated $3,000 cost for an aborted imaging study.
But those figures should not be turned into a cost-effectiveness claim. There was no control group, no comparable pre-VR completion rate, and the programme was introduced alongside a new PET/CT scanner that also changed patient positioning. The investigators explicitly caution that the 95% completion rate cannot be interpreted as a measured improvement caused by VR.
The real signal is therefore broader: patient experience can be part of diagnostic infrastructure, but it needs to be measured with the same discipline as the scanner itself.
Executive Summary
The project was conducted in the non-invasive cardiac testing department at UCHealth Southern Region in Colorado Springs between July 2025 and March 2026. It included 105 patients who used VR during cardiac PET/CT imaging. All but four reported some degree of claustrophobia, while patients were also screened for anxiety during routine pre-imaging assessment.
Patients were eligible to use VR if they had no history of seizures and were not undergoing an imaging study using the 18F-FDG radiotracer. The headset provided immersive visual and audio content, including nature and travel environments, intended to redirect attention away from the scanner.
Overall, 95% completed the ordered imaging study, 80% wore the headset throughout the procedure, and more than 75% reported a positive experience. The most common physical complaint involved headset fit, while brief Wi-Fi-related errors were the most frequently reported technical issue.
The complete VR system required an initial $4,387 investment plus $168 per month. Investigators estimated that an aborted imaging study costs roughly $3,000 based on CMS reimbursement, supplies and staffing. UCHealth has continued the programme and expanded access to patients undergoing other non-invasive cardiac tests, including echocardiography and SPECT imaging, although use is less common in those settings.
However, the project was not randomized and had no valid historical comparator. The observed completion rate therefore demonstrates feasibility, not proof that VR increases completion or saves money.
Why it matters
- HTA bodies: Digital interventions surrounding a diagnostic test may influence whether the test can actually be delivered, but evidence standards still matter. Future evaluation should compare completion rates, repeat imaging, sedation use, image quality and downstream costs rather than relying on patient satisfaction alone.
- Payers: An inexpensive intervention that prevents even a small number of aborted high-cost scans could potentially be economically attractive. That value remains hypothetical until studies show how many cancellations or repeat procedures VR actually prevents.
- Industry / innovation partners: The opportunity is not simply to sell VR headsets to hospitals. Technologies that integrate easily with imaging workflows, meet infection-control and safety requirements and demonstrate measurable reductions in failed procedures could become part of a wider market for patient-centred diagnostic support.
Cardiac imaging is becoming more technically sophisticated, but one of its barriers remains remarkably human.
For patients with severe anxiety or claustrophobia, lying still inside a PET/CT scanner can become difficult enough that an examination is interrupted or abandoned. When that happens, the problem is not limited to patient discomfort. Scanner time has already been allocated, radiotracer and other supplies may have been used, staff time has been consumed and the diagnostic question remains unanswered.
A UCHealth team asked whether an intervention normally associated with gaming and entertainment could reduce that barrier.
Patients reporting claustrophobia during routine nursing assessment were offered a virtual reality headset during cardiac PET/CT. Rather than looking at the scanner environment, they could watch and listen to calming immersive content such as nature or travel scenes. Of the 105 patients who used the programme, 100 completed their ordered imaging, producing a 95% completion rate.
The technology itself was not especially exotic. The team initially experimented with a consumer-grade headset before moving to a hospital-provided system, using the early experience to refine content, comfort, device management and workflow integration.
That progression may be the most useful part of the project.
Digital-health implementation often focuses on whether a technology works technically. Hospitals have to answer a different set of questions: who cleans it, who offers it, which patients should not use it, whether it interferes with the procedure and whether staff can incorporate it without creating another bottleneck.
UCHealth’s project addressed some of those operational questions and suggests that VR can be incorporated into a real cardiac imaging service.
A 95% completion rate is encouraging, but it is not an effect size
The headline figure requires careful interpretation.
There was no randomized comparison between VR and standard care. There was also no reliable historical baseline because the VR programme was introduced at the same time as a new PET/CT system that changed how patients were positioned inside the scanner. The investigators therefore could not determine how many patients would have completed the examination without VR.
That means it would be incorrect to claim that VR increased cardiac PET/CT completion to 95%.
What the project shows is that 95% of this selected group completed imaging while using VR, and that the intervention appeared operationally feasible and generally acceptable.
The economic argument requires the same caution.
The programme’s initial $4,387 cost looks small beside the team’s estimated $3,000 cost of one aborted scan. In theory, preventing only a few failed studies could cover the technology’s cost relatively quickly. But the project did not demonstrate how many failures were actually prevented, so those figures represent a potential business case rather than observed savings.
A stronger next study would compare VR with standard care in patients at meaningful risk of non-completion and track completed examinations, aborted scans, repeat imaging, medication or sedation use, patient-reported anxiety, image quality, staff time and total cost.
That would turn an appealing quality-improvement story into evidence that hospitals and payers could act on.
The broader lesson is already worth attention.
Healthcare systems spend heavily on increasingly precise diagnostics while often treating anxiety, mobility, health literacy and procedural tolerance as peripheral patient-experience issues. Yet those factors can determine whether patients reach the diagnosis at all.
Precision medicine cannot end with a better scanner.
Sometimes the intervention that makes sophisticated medicine accessible may be far simpler.
