Guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department 3 (GRACE-3): Acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department.

This third Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-3) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic adult patients with acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department (ED). A multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding five questions for adult ED patients with acute dizziness of less than 2 weeks' duration. The intended population is adults presenting to the ED with acute dizziness or vertigo. The panel derived 15 evidence-based recommendations based on the timing and triggers of the dizziness but recognizes that alternative diagnostic approaches exist, such as the STANDING protocol and nystagmus examination in combination with gait unsteadiness or the presence of vascular risk factors. As an overarching recommendation, (1) emergency clinicians should receive training in bedside physical examination techniques for patients with the acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; HINTS) and the diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV; Dix-Hallpike test and Epley maneuver). To help distinguish central from peripheral causes in patients with the AVS, we recommend: (2) use HINTS (for clinicians trained in its use) in patients with nystagmus, (3) use finger rub to further aid in excluding stroke in patients with nystagmus, (4) use severity of gait unsteadiness in patients without nystagmus, (5) do not use brain computed tomography (CT), (6) do not use routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a first-line test if a clinician trained in HINTS is available, and (7) use MRI as a confirmatory test in patients with central or equivocal HINTS examinations. In patients with the spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome: (8) search for symptoms or signs of cerebral ischemia, (9) do not use CT, and (10) use CT angiography or MRI angiography if there is concern for transient ischemic attack. In patients with the triggered (positional) episodic vestibular syndrome, (11) use the Dix-Hallpike test to diagnose posterior canal BPPV (pc-BPPV), (12) do not use CT, and (13) do not use MRI routinely, unless atypical clinical features are present. In patients diagnosed with vestibular neuritis, (14) consider short-term steroids as a treatment option. In patients diagnosed with pc-BPPV, (15) treat with the Epley maneuver. It is clear that as of 2023, when applied in routine practice by emergency clinicians without special training, HINTS testing is inaccurate, partly due to use in the wrong patients and partly due to issues with its interpretation. Most emergency physicians have not received training in use of HINTS. As such, it is not standard of care, either in the legal sense of that term ("what the average physician would do in similar circumstances") or in the common parlance sense ("the standard action typically used by physicians in routine practice").

Sensitivity of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in transient global amnesia as a function of time from symptom onset.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to systematically evaluate the sensitivity of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) for transient global amnesia (TGA) across various time frames compared to the reference-standard clinical criteria. METHODS: All indexed publications related to TGA and MRI through June 2020 were retrieved by a medical librarian. Two independent reviewers identified original research studies of adults with a clinical diagnosis of TGA using Caplan and Hodges and Warlow criteria (reference standard) who were evaluated with DW-MRI. Pooled estimates and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the proportion of acute TGA patients with positive DW-MRI (i.e., sensitivity) were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis for various time frames. Quality assessment was performed using the revised Quality of Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: After screening 665 reports, we identified 81 potentially relevant studies. Twenty-three studies representing 1688 patients met eligibility criteria, but not all studies had data available for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (also described as positivity rate) of DW-MRI was 15.6% (95% CI = 2.6%-35.0%) between 0 and 12 h from symptom onset, 23.1% (95% CI = 6.1%-45.7%) at 0-24 h, 72.8% (95% CI = 40.8%-96.3) at 12-24 h, 68.8% (95% CI = 44.8%-88.8%) at 24-36 h, 72.4% (95% CI = 59.8%-83.5%) at 36-48 h, 82.8% (95% CI = 54.7%-99.6%) at 48-60 h, 66.9% (95% CI = 47.5%-83.9%) at 60-72 h, and 72.0% (95% CI = 30.1%-100.0%) at 72-96 h. There was significant concern for risk of bias in the QUADAS-2 domains of patient selection and index test, yielding a low level of certainty in the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: DW-MRI lesions are uncommon in patients with TGA early after symptom onset, but the sensitivity (i.e., positivity rate) of DW-MRI increases with time. Despite the limited quality of existing evidence, obtaining an early DW-MRI in patients with clinical diagnosis of TGA in the acute setting is likely a low-yield test.

Clinical Features and Outcomes Associated with Angioedema in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Angioedema represents self-limited, localized swelling of submucosal or subcutaneous tissues. While the underlying etiology may be undeterminable in the emergent setting, nonhistaminergic and histaminergic angioedema respond differently to therapeutic interventions, with implications for empiric treatment. Clinical features and outcome differences among nonhistaminergic vs histaminergic angioedema patients in the emergency department (ED) are poorly characterized. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes among ED patients with angioedema by suspected etiology. METHODS: This was a 10-year retrospective study of adult ED patients with angioedema, using data abstracted from the electronic health record. We evaluated univariable associations of select clinical features with etiology and used them to develop a multivariable logistic regression model for nonhistaminergic vs histaminergic angioedema. RESULTS: Among 450 adult angioedema patients, the mean +/- standard deviation age was 57 +/- 18 years, and 264 (59%) were female. Among patients, 30% had suspected nonhistaminergic angioedema, 30% had suspected histaminergic angioedema, and 40% were of unknown etiology. As compared to histaminergic angioedema, nonhistaminergic angioedema was associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) (odds ratio [OR] [60.9]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23.16-160.14) and time of onset one hour or more prior to ED arrival (OR [5.91]; 95% CI,1.87-18.70) and was inversely associated with urticaria (OR [0.05]; 95% CI, 0.02-0.15), dyspnea (OR [0.23]; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67), and periorbital or lip edema (OR [0.25]; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79 and OR [0.32]; 95% CI, 0.13-0.79, respectively). CONCLUSION: As compared to histaminergic angioedema, patients with nonhistaminergic angioedema were more likely to present one hour or more after symptom onset and take ACEI or ARB medications, and were less likely to have urticaria, dyspnea, or periorbital or lip angioedema. Identification of characteristics associated with the etiology of angioedema may assist providers in more rapidly initiating targeted therapies.

Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Management in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in adult patients with acute and chronic pain who are undergoing pain management in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We searched Ovid CENTRAL, Ovid EMBASE, and Ovid MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies from inception to January 2017. Efficacy outcomes included reduction in pain scores from baseline to postintervention and need for rescue analgesia. Safety outcomes included incidence of serious (eg, cardiac arrest) and nonserious (eg, dizziness) adverse events. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the risk of bias across studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the confidence in the evidence available. RESULTS: From a total of 1,947 titles screened, 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent qualitative analysis, including 536 patients. The significant clinical heterogeneity and low quality of studies precluded a meta-analysis. Among the 6 randomized controlled trials included, intravenous lidocaine had efficacy equivalent to that of active controls in 2 studies, and was better than active controls in 2 other studies. In particular, intravenous lidocaine had pain score reduction comparable to or higher than that of intravenous morphine for pain associated with renal colic and critical limb ischemia. Lidocaine did not appear to be effective for migraine headache in 2 studies. There were 20 adverse events reported by 6 studies among 225 patients who received intravenous lidocaine in the ED, 19 nonserious and 1 serious (rate 8.9%, 95% confidence interval 5.5% to 13.4% for any adverse event; and 0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 2.5% for serious adverse events). The confidence in the evidence available for the outcomes evaluated was deemed to be very low because of methodological limitations, including risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: There is limited current evidence to define the role of intravenous lidocaine as an analgesic for patients with acute renal colic and critical limb ischemia pain in the ED. Its efficacy for other indications has not been adequately tested. The safety of lidocaine for ED pain management has not been adequately examined.

The research to practice continuum: Development of an evidence-based visual aid to improve informed consent for procedural sedation.

In order to fully participate in informed consent, patients must understand what it is that they agreeing, or not agreeing, to. In most cases, patients look to their clinicians to help develop the appropriate understanding required to give informed consent. Using a visual aid as an adjunct to risk communication in a stressful setting as the Emergency Department has a clear potential in facilitating the communication process.