Cargando…
How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test?
OBJECTIVES: Clinicians performing a horizontal head impulse test (HIT) are looking for a corrective saccade. The detection of such saccades is a challenge. The aim of this study is to assess an expert’s likelihood of detecting corrective saccades in subjects with vestibular hypofunction. DESIGN: In...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7722467/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33136647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000894 |
_version_ | 1783620160322535424 |
---|---|
author | Korda, Athanasia Carey, John Patrick Zamaro, Ewa Caversaccio, Marco Domenico Mantokoudis, Georgios |
author_facet | Korda, Athanasia Carey, John Patrick Zamaro, Ewa Caversaccio, Marco Domenico Mantokoudis, Georgios |
author_sort | Korda, Athanasia |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Clinicians performing a horizontal head impulse test (HIT) are looking for a corrective saccade. The detection of such saccades is a challenge. The aim of this study is to assess an expert’s likelihood of detecting corrective saccades in subjects with vestibular hypofunction. DESIGN: In a prospective cohort observational study at a tertiary referral hospital, we assessed 365 horizontal HITs performed clinically by an expert neurootologist from a convenience sample of seven patients with unilateral or bilateral deficient vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). All HITs were recorded simultaneously by video-oculography, as a gold standard. We evaluated saccades latency and amplitude, head velocity, and gain. RESULTS: Saccade amplitude was statistically the most significant parameter for saccade detection (p < 0.001).The probability of saccade detection was eight times higher for HIT toward the pathological side (p = 0.029). In addition, an increase in saccade amplitude resulted in an increased probability of detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.77 [1.31 to 2.40] per degree, p < 0.001). The sensitivity to detect a saccade amplitude of 1 degree was 92.9% and specificity 79%. Saccade latency and VOR gain did not significantly influence the probability of the physician identifying a saccade (OR 1.02 [0.94 to 1.11] per 10-msec latency and OR 0.84 [0.60 to 1.17] per 0.1 VOR gain increase). CONCLUSIONS: The saccade amplitude is the most important factor for accurate saccade detection in clinically performed head impulse tests. Contrary to current knowledge, saccade latency and VOR gain play a minor role in saccade detection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7722467 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77224672020-12-15 How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? Korda, Athanasia Carey, John Patrick Zamaro, Ewa Caversaccio, Marco Domenico Mantokoudis, Georgios Ear Hear Research Articles OBJECTIVES: Clinicians performing a horizontal head impulse test (HIT) are looking for a corrective saccade. The detection of such saccades is a challenge. The aim of this study is to assess an expert’s likelihood of detecting corrective saccades in subjects with vestibular hypofunction. DESIGN: In a prospective cohort observational study at a tertiary referral hospital, we assessed 365 horizontal HITs performed clinically by an expert neurootologist from a convenience sample of seven patients with unilateral or bilateral deficient vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). All HITs were recorded simultaneously by video-oculography, as a gold standard. We evaluated saccades latency and amplitude, head velocity, and gain. RESULTS: Saccade amplitude was statistically the most significant parameter for saccade detection (p < 0.001).The probability of saccade detection was eight times higher for HIT toward the pathological side (p = 0.029). In addition, an increase in saccade amplitude resulted in an increased probability of detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.77 [1.31 to 2.40] per degree, p < 0.001). The sensitivity to detect a saccade amplitude of 1 degree was 92.9% and specificity 79%. Saccade latency and VOR gain did not significantly influence the probability of the physician identifying a saccade (OR 1.02 [0.94 to 1.11] per 10-msec latency and OR 0.84 [0.60 to 1.17] per 0.1 VOR gain increase). CONCLUSIONS: The saccade amplitude is the most important factor for accurate saccade detection in clinically performed head impulse tests. Contrary to current knowledge, saccade latency and VOR gain play a minor role in saccade detection. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7722467/ /pubmed/33136647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000894 Text en Copyright © The Authors. Ear & Hearing is published on behalf of the American Auditory Society, by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Korda, Athanasia Carey, John Patrick Zamaro, Ewa Caversaccio, Marco Domenico Mantokoudis, Georgios How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? |
title | How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? |
title_full | How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? |
title_fullStr | How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? |
title_full_unstemmed | How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? |
title_short | How Good Are We in Evaluating a Bedside Head Impulse Test? |
title_sort | how good are we in evaluating a bedside head impulse test? |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7722467/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33136647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000894 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kordaathanasia howgoodareweinevaluatingabedsideheadimpulsetest AT careyjohnpatrick howgoodareweinevaluatingabedsideheadimpulsetest AT zamaroewa howgoodareweinevaluatingabedsideheadimpulsetest AT caversacciomarcodomenico howgoodareweinevaluatingabedsideheadimpulsetest AT mantokoudisgeorgios howgoodareweinevaluatingabedsideheadimpulsetest |