Validation of a comprehensive diagnostic algorithm for patients with acute vertigo and dizziness

Vascular vertigo and dizziness: managing and treating outpatients

OBJECTIVE

Due the lack of data on the treatment of Vascular Vertigo and Dizziness, this study aimed to report how we managed and treated those outpatients according to the recently introduced American Heart Association and Stroke Association guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal case series from May 2022 to February 2023. We included patients who met the Bárány Society's Vascular Vertigo and Dizziness classification and were eligible for therapy in accordance with the American Heart Association and Stroke Association guidelines, featuring aspects of the stroke group and transient attack group.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 patients (51.2% female; median age 72 years) were enrolled; 10 (24.3%) had ischemic strokes, 30 (73.1%) had transient ischemic attack, and 1 (2.4%) had a probable isolated labyrinthine infarction. The patients received dual antiplatelet (48.7%), single antiplatelet therapy (48.7%), and anticoagulant therapy (2.4%). No new crises occurred in 95.2% of the patients, and the transient ischemic attack group showed a significant decrease in discomfort from imbalance on the visual analog scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are safe and effective in treating Vascular Vertigo and Dizziness as they prevent new ischemic events and increase the flow of the posterior circulation, reducing vertigo/dizziness attacks and imbalance complaints.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Head impulse, nystagmus, and test of skew examination for diagnosing central causes of acute vestibular syndrome

BACKGROUND

Dizziness is a common reason for people to seek medical care. Acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) is a specific type of dizziness, which can include severe vertigo, nausea and vomiting, nystagmus, or unsteadiness. Acute vestibular syndrome can be due to peripheral or central causes. It is important to determine the cause, as the intervention and outcomes differ if it is from a peripheral or central cause. Clinicians can assess for the cause using risk factors, patient history, examination findings, or advanced imaging, such as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew (HINTS) examination is a three-part examination performed by clinicians to determine if AVS is due to a peripheral or central cause. This includes assessing how the eyes move in response to rapidly turning a person's head (head impulse), assessing the direction of involuntary eye movements (nystagmus), and assessing whether the eyes are aligned or misaligned (test of skew). The HINTS Plus examination includes an additional assessment of auditory function.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the HINTS and HINTS Plus examinations, with or without video assistance, for identifying a central etiology for AVS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, the International HTA database, and two trials registers to September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all retrospective and prospective diagnostic test accuracy studies that evaluated the HINTS or HINTS Plus test used in a primary care clinic, an urgent care clinic, the emergency department, or during inpatient hospitalization against a final diagnosis of a central etiology of AVS, as defined by the reference standard of advanced imaging or final diagnosis by a neurologist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently determined eligibility of each study according to eligibility criteria, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence. Disagreements were adjudicated by consensus or a third review author if needed. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the HINTS and HINTS Plus examinations for identifying a central etiology for AVS, conducted clinically (clinician visual assessment) or with video assistance (e.g. video recording with goggles); we independently assessed the clinical and video-assisted examinations. Subgroup analyses were performed by provider type (e.g. physicians, non-physicians), time from symptom onset to presentation (e.g. less than 24 hours, longer than 24 hours), reference standard (e.g. advanced imaging, discharge diagnosis), underlying etiology (e.g. ischemic stroke, alternative etiologies [hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial mass]), study setting (e.g. outpatient [outpatient clinic, urgent care clinic, emergency department], inpatient), physician level of training (e.g. resident, fellow/attending), physician specialty (e.g. otolaryngology, emergency medicine, neurology, and neurologic subspecialist [e.g. neuro-ophthalmology, neuro-otology]), and individual diagnostic accuracy of each component of the examination (e.g. head impulse, direction-changing nystagmus, test of skew). We created 2 x 2 tables of the true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives and used these data to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 2024 participants (981 women and 1043 men) with a mean age of 60 years. Twelve studies assessed the HINTS examination; five assessed the HINTS Plus examination. Thirteen studies were performed in the emergency department; half were performed by neurologists. The clinical HINTS examination (12 studies, 1890 participants) was 94.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.0% to 98.2%) sensitive, and 86.9% (95% CI 75.3% to 93.6%) specific (low-certainty evidence). The video-assisted HINTS examination (3 studies, 199 participants) was 85.0% to 100% sensitive (low-certainty evidence), and 38.9% to 100% specific (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical HINTS Plus examination (5 studies, 451 participants) was 95.3% (95% CI 78.4% to 99.1%) sensitive, and 72.9% (95% CI 44.4% to 90.1%) specific (low-certainty evidence). The video-assisted HINTS Plus examination (2 studies, 163 participants) was 85.0% to 93.8% sensitive, and 28.6% to 38.9% specific (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses were limited, as most studies were conducted in the emergency department, by physicians, and with MRI as a reference standard. Time from symptom onset to presentation varied across studies. Three studies were at high risk of bias and three studies were at unclear risk of bias for participant selection. Three studies were at unclear risk of bias for the index test. Four studies were at unclear risk of bias for the reference standard. Two studies were at unclear risk of bias for flow and timing. One study had unclear applicability concerns for participant selection. Two studies had high applicability concerns for the index test and two studies had unclear applicability concerns for the index test. No studies had applicability concerns for the reference standard.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The HINTS and HINTS Plus examinations had good sensitivity and reasonable specificity for diagnosing a central cause for AVS in the emergency department when performed by trained clinicians. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. There were limited data for the role of video-assistance or specific subgroups. Future research should include more high-quality studies of the HINTS and HINTS Plus examination; assessment of inter-rater reliability across users; accuracy across different providers, specialties, and experience; and direct comparison with no HINTS or MRI to assess the effect on clinical care.

Network Meta-analysis of Different Treatments for Vestibular Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Although one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories. However, in contrast to ordinary migraine, vestibular migraine patients have distinct characteristics, and the detailed treatment strategy for vestibular migraine is different and more challenging than ordinary migraine treatment. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence regarding its management, including vestibular migraine prophylaxis.

AIM

The objective of this current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual treatment strategies in patients with vestibular migraine.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a final literature search date of 30 December 2022. Patients diagnosed with vestibular migraine were included. The PICO of the current study included (1) patients with vestibular migraine; (2) intervention: any active pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic intervention; (3) comparator: placebo-control, active control, or waiting list; and (4) outcome: changes in migraine frequency or severity. This NMA of RCTs of vestibular migraine treatment was conducted using a frequentist model. We arranged inconsistency and similarity tests to re-examine the assumption of NMA, and also conducted a subgroup analysis focusing on RCTs of pharmacological treatment for vestibular migraine management. The primary outcome was changes in the frequency of vestibular migraines, while the secondary outcomes were changes in vestibular migraine severity and acceptability. Acceptability was set as the dropout rate, which was defined as the participant leaving the study before the end of the trial for any reason. Two authors independently evaluated the risk of bias for each domain using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials (N = 828, mean age 37.6 years, 78.4% female) and seven active regimens were included. We determined that only valproic acid (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.69, -0.54), propranolol (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -2.55, -0.17), and venlafaxine (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.32, -0.18) were significantly associated with better improvement in vestibular migraine frequency than the placebo/control groups. Furthermore, among all the investigated pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments, valproic acid yielded the greatest decrease in vestibular migraine frequency among all the interventions. In addition, most pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments were associated with similar acceptability (i.e. dropout rate) as those of the placebo/control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides evidence that only valproic acid, propranolol, and venlafaxine might be associated with beneficial efficacy in vestibular migraine treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023388343.

Needs and supporting tools for primary care physicians to improve care of patients with vertigo and dizziness: a national survey

Background

The diagnostic workup and treatment decisions for vertigo or dizziness in primary care can be challenging due to the broad range of possible causes and limited time and expertise of physicians. This can lead to delays in treatment and unnecessary tests. We aimed to identify the unmet needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) and strategies to improve care for dizzy patients.

Materials and methods

An online survey was conducted among board-certified PCPs in Switzerland to explore needs in caring for dizzy patients and potential educational approaches.

Results

Based on responses from 152 participating PCPs, satisfaction and confidence were higher in diagnosing (82%) and treating (76%) acute dizziness compared to episodic/chronic cases (63 and 59%, respectively). Younger PCPs had lower diagnostic yield and confidence. Areas for improvement in specialist interactions included communication between physicians (23%/36%; always/often true), shorter waiting times for consultations (19%/40%), more detailed feedback (36%/35%), and consistent patient back referrals (31%/30%). PCPs expressed interest in hands-on courses, workshops, practical guidelines, web-based algorithms, and digital tools such as printed dizzy diaries and apps for follow-up.

Conclusion

Enhanced dialog between PCPs and specialists is crucial to address the most common unmet needs. Reducing waiting times for referrals and providing clear instructions to specialists for triage are essential. The findings from this survey will guide the development of tools to improve the diagnosis and treatment of dizzy patients. Younger PCPs, who face higher diagnostic uncertainty, should be prioritized for educational approaches such as hands-on courses, workshops, and practical recommendations.

Posterior circulation stroke diagnosis in unselected group of acutely dizzy patients

BACKGROUNDS

Diagnostics of a posterior circulation ischemia (POCI) in patients with acute vertigo is a challenging task. Recently, the combination of HINTS (Head Impulse, Nystagmus and Test of Skew) exam and ABCD2 has been recommended to identify stroke in these patients. Until now, studies regarding HINTS have mostly been tested on preselected patient groups and their results are only partially applicable to real clinical practice.

AIMS

To compare the sensitivity and specificity of HINTS and ABCD2 and their combination in unselected acutely dizzy patients in the emergency department (ED) toward posterior circulation stroke detection.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional monocentric study in ED patients with acute onset of dizziness lasting less than 72 h. Their clinical characteristics, HINTS, vascular risk factors, ABCD2 scores and neuroimaging data were analyzed.

RESULTS

140 patients were recruited. Acute stroke was identified by MRI in 39 patients. All patients had central pattern nystagmus, skew deviation or further focal neurological finding. The age (≥60) and arterial hypertension clearly distinguished stroke and non-stroke group (p < 0001). The sensitivity of HINTS, ABCD2 and their combination in the unselected group was high (82,1 - 97,4%), but specificity low. After removing patients with inconclusive diagnosis, including transitory ischemic attack, specificity was much higher and comparable to previously published results.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of HINTS in previously published studies may vary because of their selection criteria. Even though, our study was performed on the unselected patient cohort, combination of HINTS and ABCD2 remained highly sensitive in detecting POCI and outperformed each of these tests alone.

Risk of Future Stroke in Patients with a Diagnosis of Peripheral Vertigo in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the temporal characteristics of stroke risks in the emergency department patients who had a diagnosis of peripheral vertigo. We also attempted to reveal the stroke risk factor among those with peripheral vertigo.

METHODS

This is a parallel group cohort study in a tertiary referral hospital. After assigning each of matched 4367 patients to the comparative set of peripheral vertigo and appendicitis-ureterolithiasis groups and each of matched 4911 to the comparative set of peripheral vertigo and ischemic stroke groups, we evaluated the relative stroke risk. In addition, to predict the individual stroke risk in patients with peripheral vertigo, any association between the demographic factors and stroke events was evaluated in the peripheral vertigo group.

RESULTS

The peripheral vertigo group had a higher stroke risk than the appendicitis-ureterolithiasis group (HR=1.73, 95% CI=1.18-2.55) but a lower risk than the ischemic stroke group (HR=0.30, 95% CI=0.24-0.37). The stroke risk of the peripheral vertigo group was just below that of small vessel stroke. The stroke risk of the peripheral vertigo group differed markedly by time: higher within seven days, moderate between seven days and one year, and diminished thereafter. Old age (>65), male gender, and diabetes mellitus were the risk factors for stroke in the peripheral vertigo group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a diagnosis of peripheral vertigo in the ED showed a moderate future stroke risk so that requires a stroke preventive strategy tailored to the timing of symptom onset and individual risk.