Cargando…

Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the reliability and accuracy of a bedside diagnostic algorithm for patients presenting with vertigo/unsteadiness to the emergency department. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive adult patients presenting with vertigo/unsteadiness at a tertiary hospital. STANDING, the acronym...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vanni, Simone, Pecci, Rudi, Edlow, Jonathan A., Nazerian, Peiman, Santimone, Rossana, Pepe, Giuseppe, Moretti, Marco, Pavellini, Andrea, Caviglioli, Cosimo, Casula, Claudia, Bigiarini, Sofia, Vannucchi, Paolo, Grifoni, Stefano
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682038/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29163350
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00590
_version_ 1783278027892850688
author Vanni, Simone
Pecci, Rudi
Edlow, Jonathan A.
Nazerian, Peiman
Santimone, Rossana
Pepe, Giuseppe
Moretti, Marco
Pavellini, Andrea
Caviglioli, Cosimo
Casula, Claudia
Bigiarini, Sofia
Vannucchi, Paolo
Grifoni, Stefano
author_facet Vanni, Simone
Pecci, Rudi
Edlow, Jonathan A.
Nazerian, Peiman
Santimone, Rossana
Pepe, Giuseppe
Moretti, Marco
Pavellini, Andrea
Caviglioli, Cosimo
Casula, Claudia
Bigiarini, Sofia
Vannucchi, Paolo
Grifoni, Stefano
author_sort Vanni, Simone
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We investigated the reliability and accuracy of a bedside diagnostic algorithm for patients presenting with vertigo/unsteadiness to the emergency department. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive adult patients presenting with vertigo/unsteadiness at a tertiary hospital. STANDING, the acronym for the four-step algorithm we have previously described, based on nystagmus observation and well-known diagnostic maneuvers includes (1) the discrimination between SponTAneous and positional nystagmus, (2) the evaluation of the Nystagmus Direction, (3) the head Impulse test, and (4) the evaluation of equilibrium (staNdinG). Reliability of each step was analyzed by Fleiss’ K calculation. The reference standard (central vertigo) was a composite of brain disease including stroke, demyelinating disease, neoplasm, or other brain disease diagnosed by initial imaging or during 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two patients were included. The incidence of central vertigo was 11.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.2–15.2%]. The leading cause was ischemic stroke (70%). The STANDING showed a good reliability (overall Fleiss K 0.83), the second step showing the highest (0.95), and the third step the lowest (0.74) agreement. The overall accuracy of the algorithm was 88% (95% CI 85–88%), showing high sensitivity (95%, 95% CI 83–99%) and specificity (87%, 95% CI 85–87%), very high-negative predictive value (99%, 95% CI 97–100%), and a positive predictive value of 48% (95% CI 41–50%) for central vertigo. CONCLUSION: Using the STANDING algorithm, non-sub-specialists achieved good reliability and high accuracy in excluding stroke and other threatening causes of vertigo/unsteadiness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5682038
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56820382017-11-21 Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm Vanni, Simone Pecci, Rudi Edlow, Jonathan A. Nazerian, Peiman Santimone, Rossana Pepe, Giuseppe Moretti, Marco Pavellini, Andrea Caviglioli, Cosimo Casula, Claudia Bigiarini, Sofia Vannucchi, Paolo Grifoni, Stefano Front Neurol Neuroscience OBJECTIVE: We investigated the reliability and accuracy of a bedside diagnostic algorithm for patients presenting with vertigo/unsteadiness to the emergency department. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive adult patients presenting with vertigo/unsteadiness at a tertiary hospital. STANDING, the acronym for the four-step algorithm we have previously described, based on nystagmus observation and well-known diagnostic maneuvers includes (1) the discrimination between SponTAneous and positional nystagmus, (2) the evaluation of the Nystagmus Direction, (3) the head Impulse test, and (4) the evaluation of equilibrium (staNdinG). Reliability of each step was analyzed by Fleiss’ K calculation. The reference standard (central vertigo) was a composite of brain disease including stroke, demyelinating disease, neoplasm, or other brain disease diagnosed by initial imaging or during 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two patients were included. The incidence of central vertigo was 11.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.2–15.2%]. The leading cause was ischemic stroke (70%). The STANDING showed a good reliability (overall Fleiss K 0.83), the second step showing the highest (0.95), and the third step the lowest (0.74) agreement. The overall accuracy of the algorithm was 88% (95% CI 85–88%), showing high sensitivity (95%, 95% CI 83–99%) and specificity (87%, 95% CI 85–87%), very high-negative predictive value (99%, 95% CI 97–100%), and a positive predictive value of 48% (95% CI 41–50%) for central vertigo. CONCLUSION: Using the STANDING algorithm, non-sub-specialists achieved good reliability and high accuracy in excluding stroke and other threatening causes of vertigo/unsteadiness. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5682038/ /pubmed/29163350 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00590 Text en Copyright © 2017 Vanni, Pecci, Edlow, Nazerian, Santimone, Pepe, Moretti, Pavellini, Caviglioli, Casula, Bigiarini, Vannucchi and Grifoni. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Vanni, Simone
Pecci, Rudi
Edlow, Jonathan A.
Nazerian, Peiman
Santimone, Rossana
Pepe, Giuseppe
Moretti, Marco
Pavellini, Andrea
Caviglioli, Cosimo
Casula, Claudia
Bigiarini, Sofia
Vannucchi, Paolo
Grifoni, Stefano
Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm
title Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm
title_full Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm
title_fullStr Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm
title_full_unstemmed Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm
title_short Differential Diagnosis of Vertigo in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Validation Study of the STANDING Algorithm
title_sort differential diagnosis of vertigo in the emergency department: a prospective validation study of the standing algorithm
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682038/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29163350
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00590
work_keys_str_mv AT vannisimone differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT peccirudi differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT edlowjonathana differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT nazerianpeiman differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT santimonerossana differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT pepegiuseppe differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT morettimarco differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT pavelliniandrea differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT cavigliolicosimo differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT casulaclaudia differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT bigiarinisofia differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT vannucchipaolo differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm
AT grifonistefano differentialdiagnosisofvertigointheemergencydepartmentaprospectivevalidationstudyofthestandingalgorithm