Search

Background: History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings., Methods: This study involved a patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed., Results: From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination-five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%-61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%-98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis-four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%-23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%-99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia-10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%-87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%-96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs-four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%-36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%-99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)-17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%-85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%-95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus-six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%-74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%-74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type-16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%-60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%-99.7%, moderate]); test of skew-15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%-35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%-98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)-14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%-97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%-91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)-five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%-100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%-93.0%, high)., Conclusions: Most neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: A short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN., Methods: We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was performed., Results: From 149 titles, five systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and two reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These two reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta-analysis of two RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient-reported vertigo or patient-reported dizziness disability. There was a wide CI for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (one study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs. 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI -8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low., Conclusions: There is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of VN in the emergency department., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute vertigo or dizziness represent a diagnostic challenge. Neuroimaging has variable indications and yield. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of neuroimaging for patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness., Methods: An electronic search was designed following patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question-(P) adult patients with acute vertigo or dizziness presenting to the ED; (I) neuroimaging including computed tomography (CT), CT angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and ultrasound (US); (C) MRI/clinical criterion standard; and (O) central causes (stroke, hemorrhage, tumor, others) versus peripheral causes of symptoms. Articles were assessed in duplicate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence in pooled estimates., Results: We included studies that reported diagnostic test accuracy. From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 12 were included: noncontrast CT scan-six studies, 771 patients, pooled sensitivity 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%-48.5%, moderate certainty) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 93.4%-99.8%, moderate certainty); MRI-five studies, 943 patients, sensitivity 79.8% (95% CI 71.4%-86.2%, high certainty) and specificity 98.8% (95% CI 96.2%-100%, high certainty); CTA-one study, 153 patients, sensitivity 14.3% (95% CI 1.8%-42.8%) and specificity 97.7% (95% CI 93.8%-99.6%), CT had higher sensitivity than CTA (21.4% and 14.3%) for central etiology; MRA-one study, 24 patients, sensitivity 60.0% (95% CI 26.2%-87.8%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 66.1%-99.8%); US-three studies, 258 patients, sensitivity ranged from 30% to 53.6%, specificity from 94.9% to 100%., Conclusions: Noncontrast CT has very low sensitivity and MRI will miss approximately one in five patients with stroke if imaging is obtained early after symptom onset. The evidence does not support neuroimaging as the only tool for ruling out stroke and other central causes in patients with acute dizziness or vertigo presenting to the ED., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: Computed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low-risk abdominal pain adult ED patients., Methods: An electronic search was designed for the patient-intervention-control-outcome-timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index-negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life-threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging., Results: Although 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low-risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%-47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%-67%)., Conclusion: Due to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low-risk recurrent abdominal pain., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety., Methods: We systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach., Results: A total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty)., Conclusions: We were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream., (© 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high-risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening., Methods: This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO-penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864-0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from -3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%-90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non-ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%-88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%-95.8%)., Conclusion: A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium-targeted screening of high-risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation., (© 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)