The imaging of the dizzy patient: computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging

Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography Scan versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Emergency Department for the Evaluation of Dizziness: A Systematic Review

Introduction  Both computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) play significant roles in assessing patients with dizziness. However, understanding the comparative capabilities of these imaging methods in detecting pathological causes is crucial for determining the most suitable modality. This review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of MRI and CT scans in managing patients with acute dizziness in the emergency department. Methods  Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search in various databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, British Medical Journals, and ScienceDirect) from 2010 to 2023. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess bias risk, considering MRI as the reference standard and CT scan as the index test. Results  The final analysis included six studies, with 3,993 patients (48% male, 52% female; average age: 56.7 years). Three studies were of high quality, two of medium quality, and one of low quality. Central ischemia was the predominant diagnosis for dizziness. MRI demonstrated higher diagnostic efficacy for stroke compared with CT scans, while mixed results were observed for other multiple diseases when both MRI and CT scans were used. Conclusion  MRI outperforms CT scans in diagnosing dizziness-related strokes. However, for other causes of dizziness, there is no significant difference between these techniques. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations associated with MRI. Consequently, to address these concerns, the selection of an imaging technique should be tailored to the individual based on factors such as their clinical presentation, comorbidities, and socioeconomic circumstances.

MRI dedicated to the emergency department for diplopia or dizziness: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of diagnostic workup without and with MRI dedicated to the ED.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational uncontrolled before-after study in one ED of a university hospital in France from July 1, 2018, and January 3, 2020. We included all consecutive patients presenting with dizziness or diplopia. The main outcomes were the clinical decision time of ED physicians and the total costs for each strategy. Outcomes were compared using propensity score with inverse probability weighting in the 2 arms and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 199 patients during the "before" period (average age: 60.4 years ± 17.6): 112 men (57%), and 181 during the "after" period (average age, 54.8 years ± 18.5): 107 men (59%), the average costs were €2701 (95% CI 1918; 3704) and €2389 (95% CI: €1627; 3280) per patient, respectively. The average time to clinical decision was 9.8 h (95% CI: 8.9 10.7) in the group "before" and 7.7 h (95% CI: 7.1; 8.4) in the group "after" (ICER: €151 saved for a reduction of 1 h in clinical decision time). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 71% chance that the MRI dedicated to ED was dominant (less costly and more effective).

CONCLUSION

Easy access to MRI in the ED for posterior circulation stroke-like symptoms must be considered a relevant approach to help physicians for an appropriate and rapid diagnostic with reduction of costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03660852 KEY POINTS: • A dedicated MRI in the ED for diplopia or dizziness may be considered an efficient strategy improving diagnostic performance, reducing physicians' decision time, and decreasing hospital costs. • This strategy supports clinical decision-making with early treatment and management of patients with posterior circulation-like symptoms in the ED. • There is 71% chance that the MRI dedicated to ED was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared with a strategy without dedicated MRI.