Clinical Testing of Head Impulse Paradigm and Suppression Head Impulse Paradigm Using a Diagnostic Headband: Combined Clinical Sign for Improved Performance

A Clinical Infrared Video-Oculoscopy Suppression Head Impulse (IR-cSHIMP) Test

BACKGROUND

We propose a Suppression Head IMPulse (SHIMP) test method that provides for equipment only through the use of InfraRed Video-OculoScopy (IR-VOS) and allows horizontal and vertical semicircular canal function evaluation in bedside mode. We therefore named the test InfraRed clinical SHIMP (IR-cSHIMP).

METHODS

To check IR-cSHIMP diagnostic efficiency, we studied 22 normal subjects, 18 patients with unilateral, and 6 with bilateral deficient vestibulopathy. Each subject first underwent a vestibular examination and, only later, an IRc-SHIMP test.

RESULTS

When the IR-cSHIMP test was performed in the horizontal plane, all normal subjects showed anti-compensatory saccades. When the vertical semicircular canal function was evaluated, the same result was obtained in all normal subjects except three, which were considered false positives. In patients with vestibular deficits, the test performed in the horizontal and vertical planes were always pathological, with 100% agreement between clinical and instrumental tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Our bedside method proved to be fast, simple, and effective in discriminating between healthy and pathological subjects. It required only the same skill as the better-known cHIT. For these reasons, we believe that the IR-cSHIMP should be part of daily clinical practice as a useful tool in the selection of patients to undergo more sophisticated investigations.

Suppression Head Impulse Test (SHIMP) versus Head Impulse Test (HIMP) When Diagnosing Bilateral Vestibulopathy

The Suppression Head Impulse (SHIMP) test was introduced as an alternative to the Head Impulse Paradigm (HIMP) to overcome challenges in VOR gain calculation due to the interference of covert saccades. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if SHIMP, compared to HIMP, reduces covert saccades in BV patients and (2) to define the agreement on diagnosing BV between SHIMP and HIMP. First, the number of covert saccades was compared between SHIMP and HIMP. Secondly, VOR gain was compared between SHIMP and HIMP. Lastly, the agreement between SHIMP and HIMP on identifying BV (horizontal VOR gain <0.6) was evaluated. A total of 98 BV patients were included. To our knowledge, this is the largest study population on SHIMP testing in BV patients. Covert saccades were significantly reduced, and a lower VOR gain was found during SHIMP compared to HIMP (p < 0.001). However, the clinical relevance of these statistically significant differences is small. In 93% of the patients, an agreement was found between the two paradigms regarding the diagnosis of BV, and both paradigms detect BV in the vast majority of patients.