Search

Background: Diagnosing stroke in dizzy patients remains a challenge in emergency medicine. The accuracy of the neuroophthalmologic examination HINTS performed by emergency physicians (EPs) is unknown. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of the HINTS examination performed by trained EPs for diagnosing central cause of acute vertigo and unsteadiness and to compare it with another bedside clinical tool, STANDING, and with the history‐based score ABCD2. Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic cohort study among patients with isolated vertigo and unsteadiness seen in a single emergency department (ED). Trained EPs performed HINTS and STANDING tests blinded to attending physicians. ABCD2 ≥ 4 was used as the threshold and was calculated retrospectively. The criterion standard was diffusion‐weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Peripheral diagnoses were established by a normal MRI, and etiologies were further refined by an otologic examination. Results: We included 300 patients of whom 62 had a central lesion on neuroimaging including 49 strokes (79%). Of the 238 peripheral diagnoses, 159 were vestibulopathies, mainly benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (40%). HINTS and STANDING tests reached high sensitivities at 97% and 94% and NPVs at 99% and 98%, respectively. The ABCD2 score failed to predict half of central vertigo cases and had a sensitivity of 55% and a NPV of 87%. The STANDING test was more specific and had a better positive predictive value (PPV; 75% and 49%, respectively; positive likelihood ratio [LR+] = 3.71, negative likelihood ratio [LR–] = 0.09) than the HINTS test (67% and 44%, respectively; LR+ = 2.96, LR– = 0.04). The ABCD2 score was specific (82%, LR+ = 3.04, LR– = 0.56) but had a very low PPV (44%). Conclusions: In the hands of EPs, HINTS and STANDING tests outperformed ABCD2 in identifying central causes of vertigo. For diagnosing peripheral disorders, the STANDING algorithm is more specific than the HINTS test. HINTS and STANDING could be useful tools saving both time and costs related to unnecessary neuroimaging use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The HINTS exam is a series of bedside ocular motor tests designed to distinguish between central and peripheral causes of dizziness in patients with continuous dizziness, nystagmus, and gait unsteadiness. Previous studies, where the HINTS exam was performed by trained specialists, have shown excellent diagnostic accuracy. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the HINTS exam as performed by emergency physicians on patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a primary complaint of vertigo or dizziness. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from patients who presented to a tertiary care ED between September 2014 and March 2018 with a primary complaint of vertigo or dizziness. Patient characteristics of those who received the HINTS exam were assessed along with sensitivity and specificity of the test to rule out a central cause of stroke. Results: A total of 2,309 patients met criteria for inclusion in the study. Physician uptake of the HINTS exam was high, with 450 (19.5%) dizzy patients receiving all or part of the HINTS. A large majority of patients (96.9%) did not meet criteria for receiving the test as described in validation studies; most often this was because patients lacked documentation of nystagmus or described their symptoms as intermittent. In addition, many patients received both HINTS and Dix‐Hallpike exams, which are intended for use in mutually exclusive patient populations. In no case was dizziness due to a central cause identified using the HINTS exam. Conclusions: Our results suggest that despite widespread use of the HINTS exam in our ED, its diagnostic value in that setting was limited. The test was frequently used in patients who did not meet criteria to receive the HINTS exam (i.e., continuous vertigo, nystagmus, and unsteady gait). Additional training of emergency physicians may be required to improve test sensitivity and specificity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Existing literature suggests that patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage ( aSAH) and 'sentinel' aSAH symptoms prompting healthcare evaluations prior to aSAH diagnosis are at increased risk of unfavorable neurologic outcomes and death. Accordingly, these encounters have been presumed to be unrecognized opportunities to diagnose aSAH and the worse outcomes representative of the added risks of delayed diagnoses. We sought to reinvestigate this paradigm among a contemporary cohort of patients with aSAH. Methods A case-control cohort was retrospectively assembled among patients diagnosed with aSAH between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2013 within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Patients with a discrete clinical evaluation for headache or neck pain within 14 days prior to formal aSAH diagnosis were identified as cases, and the remaining patients served as controls. Modified Rankin Scale scores at 90 days and 1 year were determined by structured chart review. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, presence of intracerebral or intraventricular hemorrhage at diagnosis, and aneurysm size was used to compare adjusted outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying definitions of favorable neurologic outcomes, a restricted control subgroup of patients with normal mental status at hospital admission, inclusion of additional cases that were diagnosed outside of the integrated health system, and exclusion of patients without evidence of subarachnoid blood on initial noncontrast cranial computed tomography ( CT) at the diagnostic encounter (i.e. ' CT-negative' SAH). Results A total of 450 patients with aSAH were identified, 46 (10%) of whom had clinical evaluations for possible aSAH-related symptoms in the 14 days preceding formal diagnosis (cases). In contrast to prior reports, no differences were observed among cases compared to control patients in adjusted odds of death or unfavorable neurologic status at 90 days (0.35, 95% confidence interval [ CI] = 0.11-1.15; 0.59, 95% CI = 0.22-1.60, respectively) or at 1 year (0.58, 95% CI = 0.19-1.73; 0.52, 95% CI = 0.18-1.51, respectively). Likewise, neither restricting the analysis to a control subgroup of patients with normal mental status at hospital admission, varying the dichotomous definition of unfavorable neurologic outcome, inclusion of cases diagnosed outside the integrated health system, or exclusion of patients with CT-negative SAH resulted in significant adjusted outcome differences. Conclusion In a contemporary cohort of patients with aSAH, we observed no statistically significant increase in the adjusted odds of death or unfavorable neurologic outcomes among patients with clinical evaluations for possible aSAH-related symptoms in the 14 days preceding formal diagnosis of aSAH. While these findings cannot exclude a smaller risk difference than previously reported, they can help refine decision analyses and testing threshold determinations for patients with possible aSAH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective was to compare test characteristics of a single serum concentration of glial fibrillary acidic protein ( GFAP), S-100β, and ubiquitin carboxyl terminal hydrolase L1 ( UCH-L1), obtained within 6 hours of head injury, to diagnose mild traumatic brain injury ( mTBI) in head-injured subjects. Methods Adults aged 18 to 80 years who presented to one of seven EDs with a blunt closed head injury underwent head CT within 4 hours of injury and had blood drawn for biomarker analysis within 6 hours of injury were eligible. Subjects were considered to have mTBI if they had an initial Glasgow Coma Scale ( GCS) > 13 and met one or more of the following criteria: loss of consciousness ( LOC), posttraumatic amnesia, or confusion. Subjects with mTBI and an abnormal head computed tomography ( CT) scan were categorized as complicated mTBI; those with a normal head CT were categorized as uncomplicated mTBI; and subjects with a GCS = 15, no LOC, no posttraumatic amnesia, and no confusion were considered to not have a mTBI. Biomarker concentration measurements for GFAP and UCH-L1 were performed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. S-100β concentration was determined using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Median biomarker concentration for each group was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Logistic regression was used to determine area under the receiver operating curve ( AUC) for each of the three biomarkers. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value ( NPV), positive predictive value ( PPV), and negative and positive likelihood ratios ( LRs) for the three biomarkers to differentiate between complicated mTBI, uncomplicated mTBI, and no mTBI were calculated. Results A total of 247 subjects were enrolled and had adequate clinical and biomarker information for analysis. A total of 188 met criteria for mTBI, with 34 (18.1%) having an acute abnormality on CT (complicated mTBI). The mean (± SD) age of the study population was 45.8 (±17.3) years, and 59.9% were male. Median serum concentrations for all biomarkers were significantly different between groups, lowest in the no mTBI group, and progressively increasing in the uncomplicated and complicated mTBI groups (p < 0.0001). All three biomarkers were significant classifiers of mTBI versus no mTBI, with the following AUCs: GFAP, 0.70; S-100β, 0.69; and UCH-L1, 0.65 (p = 0.17). Sensitivity for mTBI was highest for S-100β (96.5%). NPVs ranged from 31% for UCH-L1 to 35% for GFAP. PPVs ranged from 75.5% for S-100β to 96.5% for GFAP. Negative LR ranged from 0.59 for GFAP to 0.71 for UCH-L1, with positive LR ranging from 1.0 for both UCH-L1 and S-100β to 8.7 for GFAP. Conclusion A single serum concentration of GFAP, UCH-L1, or S-100β within 6 hours of head injury may be useful in identifying and stratifying the severity of brain injury in emergency department patients with head trauma, but cannot reliably exclude a diagnosis of concussion. A positive GFAP was associated with the presence of concussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Herniation of the brain outside of its normal intracranial spaces is assumed to be accompanied by clinically apparent neurologic dysfunction. The authors sought to determine if some patients with brain herniation or significant brain shift diagnosed by cranial computed tomography (CT) might have a normal neurologic examination. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) II cranial CT database compiled from a multicenter, prospective, observational study of all patients for whom cranial CT scanning was ordered in the emergency department (ED). Clinical information including neurologic examination was prospectively collected on all patients prior to CT scanning. Using the final cranial CT radiology reports from participating centers, all CT scans were classified into three categories: frank herniation, significant shift without frank herniation, and minimal or no shift, based on predetermined explicit criteria. These reports were concatenated with clinical information to form the final study database. Results: A total of 161 patients had CT-diagnosed frank herniation; 3 (1.9%) had no neurologic deficit. Of 91 patients with significant brain shift but no herniation, 4 (4.4%) had no neurologic deficit. Conclusions: A small number of patients may have normal neurologic status while harboring significant brain shift or brain herniation on cranial CT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]