Effectiveness and reliability of the four-step STANDING algorithm performed by interns and senior emergency physicians for predicting central causes of vertigo.

BACKGROUND: For emergency physicians (EPs), acute vertigo is a challenging complaint and learning a reliable clinical approach is needed. STANDING is a four-step bedside algorithm that requires (1) identifying spontaneous nystagmus with Frenzel glasses or, alternatively, a positional nystagmus; (2) characterizing the nystagmus direction; (3) assessing the vestibuloocular reflex (head impulse test); and (4) assessing the gait. The objective was to determine its accuracy for diagnosing central vertigo when using by naïve examiners as such as interns and its agreement with senior EPs. METHODS: This was a prospective 1-year diagnostic cohort study among patients with vertigo, vestibulovisual symptoms, or postural symptoms seen by 20 interns trained in the four-step examination. The algorithm was performed first by an intern and second by a senior EP and categorized as either worrisome when indicating a central diagnosis and benign or inconclusive when indicating a peripheral diagnosis. The reference test was diffusion-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Among 312 patients included, 57 had a central diagnosis including 33 ischemic strokes (10.5%). The main etiology was benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (32.7%). The likelihood ratios were 4.63 and 10.33 for a worrisome STANDING, 0.09 and 0.01 for a benign STANDING, and 0.21 and 0.35 for an inconclusive STANDING, for interns and senior EPs, respectively. The algorithm showed sensitivities of 84.8% (95% CI 75.6%-93.9%) and 89.8% (95% CI 82.1%-97.5%), negative predictive values of 96.2% (95% CI 93.7%-98.6%) and 97.5% (95% CI 95.5%-99.5%), specificities of 88.9% (95% CI 85.1%-92.8%) and 91.3% (95% CI 87.8%-94.8%), and positive predictive values of 64.1% (95% CI 53.5%-74.8%) and 70.7% (95% CI 60.4%-81.0%), respectively. The agreement between interns and senior EPs was very substantial (B-statistic coefficient: 0.77) and almost perfect for each step: (1) 0.87, (2) 0.98, (3) 0.95, and (4) 0.99. CONCLUSIONS: With a single training session, the algorithm reached high accuracy and reliability for ruling out central causes of vertigo in the hands of both novices and experienced EPs. A future multicenter randomized controlled trial should further its impact on unnecessary neuroimaging use and patient's satisfaction.

Performance of Targeted Congenital Cytomegalovirus Screening in Newborns Failing Universal Hearing Screening: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most frequent cause of congenital infection and ≈20% of all infected neonates present or will develop sensorineural hearing loss. Targeted congenital CMV (cCMV) screening in newborns who failed universal newborn hearing screening has been proposed as a strategy to identify neonates with both hearing loss and cCMV infection who could benefit from antiviral treatment implemented within the first month of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and performance of cCMV targeted screening in a French setting. METHODS: Neonates were recruited in 5 maternity centers in greater Paris. A saliva sample for CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing was collected in neonates who failed newborn hearing screening. Outcomes including CMV PCR result and confirmation of hearing loss by an otorhinolaryngologist specialist were documented. RESULTS: Two-hundred thirty-six newborns were included and a saliva sample was collected in 98% (231/236) of them. The result of CMV PCR was available at a median of 9 days (7-10 days) of life and in 96% of cases within the first month of life. Two neonates were infected with CMV. The result of the otorhinolaryngologist assessment was available in 75% (178/236) of cases at a median of 16 days (9-26 days). Hearing loss was confirmed in 2.8% (5/178). The 2 infected neonates had hearing loss confirmed at 5 and 8 days of life and were treated with valganciclovir at days 9 and 16, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The result of this study confirms that targeted cCMV screening is feasible in these French settings.

Differentiating central from peripheral causes of acute vertigo in an emergency setting with the HINTS, STANDING, and ABCD2 tests: A diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing stroke in dizzy patients remains a challenge in emergency medicine. The accuracy of the neuroophthalmologic examination HINTS performed by emergency physicians (EPs) is unknown. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of the HINTS examination performed by trained EPs for diagnosing central cause of acute vertigo and unsteadiness and to compare it with another bedside clinical tool, STANDING, and with the history-based score ABCD2. METHODS: This was a prospective diagnostic cohort study among patients with isolated vertigo and unsteadiness seen in a single emergency department (ED). Trained EPs performed HINTS and STANDING tests blinded to attending physicians. ABCD2 ≥ 4 was used as the threshold and was calculated retrospectively. The criterion standard was diffusion-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Peripheral diagnoses were established by a normal MRI, and etiologies were further refined by an otologic examination. RESULTS: We included 300 patients of whom 62 had a central lesion on neuroimaging including 49 strokes (79%). Of the 238 peripheral diagnoses, 159 were vestibulopathies, mainly benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (40%). HINTS and STANDING tests reached high sensitivities at 97% and 94% and NPVs at 99% and 98%, respectively. The ABCD2 score failed to predict half of central vertigo cases and had a sensitivity of 55% and a NPV of 87%. The STANDING test was more specific and had a better positive predictive value (PPV; 75% and 49%, respectively; positive likelihood ratio [LR+] = 3.71, negative likelihood ratio [LR-] = 0.09) than the HINTS test (67% and 44%, respectively; LR+ = 2.96, LR- = 0.04). The ABCD2 score was specific (82%, LR+ = 3.04, LR- = 0.56) but had a very low PPV (44%). CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of EPs, HINTS and STANDING tests outperformed ABCD2 in identifying central causes of vertigo. For diagnosing peripheral disorders, the STANDING algorithm is more specific than the HINTS test. HINTS and STANDING could be useful tools saving both time and costs related to unnecessary neuroimaging use.