Bellolio, Fernanda

AbstractBackgroundCanalith repositioning maneuvers (such as the Epley maneuver) are recommended by specialty guidelines for management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) yet are frequently underutilized in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs to summarize the evidence of Epley maneuver for the treatment of posterior canal (pc) BPPV in any setting. We included SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Epley to control in adult patients with pc‐BPPV. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Meta‐analysis of individual studies was conducted with random and fixed effects.ResultsFrom 2228 titles, seven SRs were selected for quality assessment. One review was of higher methodological quality, included only RCTs, and was the most current and comprehensive. Five of the 11 RCTs of the review, including 312 patients with pc‐BPPV diagnosed by Dix–Hallpike, were relevant to our question. Meta‐analysis of four RCTs (251 patients) showed the use of Epley (compared to control) was associated with higher complete resolution of vertigo at 1 week (OR 7.19, 95% CI 1.52–33.98, moderate certainty). Meta‐analysis of three RCTs (195 patients) showed the use of Epley was associated with higher conversion to negative Dix–Hallpike at 1 week (OR 6.67, 95% CI 1.52–33.98, moderate certainty). The number‐needed‐to‐treat was three. Meta‐analysis of the outcomes at 1 month, and when observational studies were included, showed similar results. No serious adverse effects were reported.ConclusionsSymptoms of pc‐BPPV improve with the Epley maneuver. Emergency clinicians should become familiar with performing the Epley for BPPV. Further studies on ED implementation and clinician education of Epley are needed.

AbstractBackgroundHistory and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings.MethodsThis study involved a patient–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed.ResultsFrom 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination—five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%–61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%–98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis—four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%–23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%–99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia—10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%–87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%–96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs—four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%–36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%–99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)—17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%–85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%–95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus—six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%–74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%–74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type—16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%–60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%–99.7%, moderate]); test of skew—15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%–35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%–98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)—14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%–97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%–91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)—five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%–100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%–93.0%, high).ConclusionsMost neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.

AbstractBackgroundA short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN.MethodsWe included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR‐2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta‐analysis was performed.ResultsFrom 149 titles, five systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and two reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These two reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta‐analysis of two RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient‐reported vertigo or patient‐reported dizziness disability. There was a wide CI for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (one study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs. 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI −8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of VN in the emergency department.

AbstractBackgroundPatients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute vertigo or dizziness represent a diagnostic challenge. Neuroimaging has variable indications and yield. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of neuroimaging for patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness.MethodsAn electronic search was designed following patient–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) question—(P) adult patients with acute vertigo or dizziness presenting to the ED; (I) neuroimaging including computed tomography (CT), CT angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and ultrasound (US); (C) MRI/clinical criterion standard; and (O) central causes (stroke, hemorrhage, tumor, others) versus peripheral causes of symptoms. Articles were assessed in duplicate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence in pooled estimates.ResultsWe included studies that reported diagnostic test accuracy. From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 12 were included: noncontrast CT scan—six studies, 771 patients, pooled sensitivity 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%–48.5%, moderate certainty) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 93.4%–99.8%, moderate certainty); MRI—five studies, 943 patients, sensitivity 79.8% (95% CI 71.4%–86.2%, high certainty) and specificity 98.8% (95% CI 96.2%–100%, high certainty); CTA—one study, 153 patients, sensitivity 14.3% (95% CI 1.8%–42.8%) and specificity 97.7% (95% CI 93.8%–99.6%), CT had higher sensitivity than CTA (21.4% and 14.3%) for central etiology; MRA—one study, 24 patients, sensitivity 60.0% (95% CI 26.2%–87.8%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 66.1%–99.8%); US—three studies, 258 patients, sensitivity ranged from 30% to 53.6%, specificity from 94.9% to 100%.ConclusionsNoncontrast CT has very low sensitivity and MRI will miss approximately one in five patients with stroke if imaging is obtained early after symptom onset. The evidence does not support neuroimaging as the only tool for ruling out stroke and other central causes in patients with acute dizziness or vertigo presenting to the ED.

Objectives Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19. Design Retrospective cohort. Setting The USA; 2017–2018 influenza season, 2018–2019 influenza season, and 2019–2020 influenza/COVID-19 season. Participants People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. Main outcome measures Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons. Results The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (−0.2 pp, 95% CI −0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28)). Conclusions People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice.

Introduction Opioid analgesics are often used to treat moderate-to-severe acute non-cancer pain; however, there is little high-quality evidence to guide clinician prescribing. An essential element to developing evidence-based guidelines is a better understanding of pain management and pain control among individuals experiencing acute pain for various common diagnoses. Methods and analysis This multicentre prospective observational study will recruit 1550 opioid-naïve participants with acute pain seen in diverse clinical settings including primary/urgent care, emergency departments and dental clinics. Participants will be followed for 6 months with the aid of a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates data from study questionnaires, electronic health record data on healthcare services received, prescription fill data from pharmacies, and activity and sleep data from a Fitbit activity tracker. Participants will be enrolled to represent diverse races and ethnicities and pain conditions, as well as geographical diversity. Data analysis will focus on assessing patients’ patterns of pain and opioid analgesic use, along with other pain treatments; associations between patient and condition characteristics and patient-centred outcomes including resolution of pain, satisfaction with care and long-term use of opioid analgesics; and descriptive analyses of patient management of leftover opioids. Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from IRBs at each site. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. Trial registration number NCT04509115 .

AbstractThis second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic “low‐risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.” The 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 four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low‐risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid‐minimizing strategy for pain control.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe GRACE‐2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low‐risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient‐intervention‐comparison‐outcome‐time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low‐risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.