Jonathan A. Edlow

Spectrum of Dizziness Visits to US Emergency Departments: Cross-Sectional Analysis From a Nationally Representative Sample

OBJECTIVE To describe the spectrum of visits to US emergency departments (EDs) for acute dizziness and determine whether ED patients with dizziness are diagnosed as having a range of benign and dangerous medical disorders, rather than predominantly vestibular ones. PATIENTS AND METHODS A cross-sectional study of ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) used a weighted sample of US ED visits (1993-2005) to measure patient and hospital demographics, ED diagnoses, and resource use in cases vs controls without dizziness. Dizziness in patients 16 years or older was defined as an NHAMCS reason-for-visit code of dizziness/vertigo (1225.0) or a final International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis of dizziness/vertigo (780.4) or of a vestibular disorder (386.x). RESULTS A total of 9472 dizziness cases (3.3% of visits) were sampled over 13 years (weighted 33.6 million). Top diagnostic groups were otologic/vestibular (32.9%), cardiovascular (21.1%), respiratory (11.5%), neurologic (11.2%, including 4% cerebrovascular), metabolic (11.0%), injury/poisoning (10.6%), psychiatric (7.2%), digestive (7.0%), genitourinary (5.1%), and infectious (2.9%). Nearly half of the cases (49.2%) were given a medical diagnosis, and 22.1% were given only a symptom diagnosis. Predefined dangerous disorders were diagnosed in 15%, especially among those older than 50 years (20.9% vs 9.3%; P<.001). Dizziness cases were evaluated longer (mean 4.0 vs 3.4 hours), imaged disproportionately (18.0% vs 6.9% undergoing computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging), and admitted more often (18.8% vs 14.8%) (all P<.001). CONCLUSION Dizziness is not attributed to a vestibular disorder in most ED cases and often is associated with cardiovascular or other medical causes, including dangerous ones. Resource use is substantial, yet many patients remain undiagnosed.

Headache in United States emergency departments: demographics, work-up and frequency of pathological diagnoses.

Headache is a common complaint in the emergency department (ED). In order to examine headache work-ups and diagnoses across the USA, we queried a representative sample of adult ED visits (the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey) for the years 1992–2001. Headache accounted for 2.1 million ED visits per year (2.2% of visits). Of the 14% of patients who underwent neuroimaging, 5.5% received a pathological diagnosis. Of the 2% of patients who underwent lumbar puncture, 11% received a pathological diagnosis. On multivariable analysis, a decreased rate of imaging was noted for patients without private insurance [odds ratio (OR) 0.61, confidence interval (CI) 0.44, 0.86] and for those presenting off-hours (OR 0.55, CI 0.39, 0.77). Patients over 50 were more likely to receive a pathological diagnosis (OR 3.3, CI 1.2, 9.3). In conclusion, clinicians should ensure that appropriate work-ups are performed regardless of presentation time or insurance status, and be vigilant in the evaluation of older patients.

Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Diagnosis and Management of the Adult Psychiatric Patient in the Emergency Department

From the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Subcommittee (Writing Committee) on Critical Issues in the Diagnosis and Management of the Adult Psychiatric Patient in the Emergency Department: Thomas W. Lukens, MD, PhD, (Chair) Stephen J. Wolf, MD Jonathan A. Edlow, MD Samina Shahabuddin, MD Michael H. Allen, MD, (American Association for Emergency Psychiatry) Glenn W. Currier, MD, MPH, (American Association for Emergency Psychiatry) Andy S. Jagoda, MD, (Chair, Clinical Policies Committee)

Disconnect Between Charted Vestibular Diagnoses and Emergency Department Management Decisions: A Cross‐sectional Analysis From a Nationally Representative Sample

OBJECTIVES The most common vestibular disorders seen in the emergency department (ED) are benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and acute peripheral vestibulopathy (APV; i.e., vestibular neuritis or labyrinthitis). BPPV and APV are two very distinct disorders that have different clinical presentations that require different diagnostic and treatment strategies. BPPV can be diagnosed without imaging and is treated with canalith-repositioning maneuvers. APV sometimes requires neuroimaging by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to exclude posterior fossa stroke mimics and should be treated with vestibular sedatives and corticosteroids. We sought to determine if emergency physicians (EPs) apply best practices to diagnose and treat these common vestibular disorders. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). A weighted sample of U.S. ED visits (1993-2005) was used. Patients at least 16 years of age who were given a final ED diagnosis of BPPV (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision [ICD-9], 386.11) or APV (ICD-9 386.12 or 386.3x) comprised the study population. The frequency of imaging and drug therapy in those diagnosed as BPPV or APV versus controls was the main outcome measure. RESULTS A total of 9,472 dizzy patient visits were sampled over 13 years (weighted estimate 33.6 million U.S. ED visits over that period). A weighted estimate of 2.5 million patients (7.4%) were given a vestibular diagnosis, mostly BPPV (weighted 0.2 million) or APV (weighted 1.9 million). Patients given BPPV (19%) and APV (19%) diagnoses were more likely to undergo imaging (all by computed tomography [CT]) than controls (7%; p < 0.001). Patients given BPPV (58%) and APV (70%) diagnoses were more likely to receive meclizine than controls (0.1%; p < 0.001). Corticosteroid administration was rarely documented (2% BPPV, 1% APV). CONCLUSIONS Patients given a vestibular diagnosis in the ED may not be managed optimally. Patients given BPPV and APV diagnoses undergo imaging (predominantly CT) with equal frequency, suggesting overuse of CT (BPPV) and probably underuse of MRI (APV). Most patients diagnosed with BPPV are given meclizine, which is not indicated. Specific therapy for APV (corticosteroids) is probably underutilized. Educational initiatives and clinical guidelines merit consideration.

Diagnosis of acute neurological emergencies in pregnant and post-partum women

Acute neurological symptoms in pregnant and post-partum women could be caused by exacerbation of a pre-existing neurological condition, the initial presentation of a non-pregnancy-related problem, or a new acute-onset neurological problem that is either unique to or occurs with increased frequency during or just after pregnancy. Pregnant and postpartum patients with headache and neurological symptoms are often diagnosed with pre-eclampsia; however, a range of other causes must also be considered, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Precise diagnosis is essential to guide subsequent management. Our ability to differentiate between the specific causes of acute neurological symptoms in pregnant and post-partum patients is likely to improve as we learn more about the pathogenesis of these disorders.

Diagnosis of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

The ideal therapy and neurocritical care for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) follows from an early and accurate diagnosis. However, approximately 30% of patients with SAH are misdiagnosed at their initial visit to a physician. This article explores the reasons for this alarming error rate: failure to understand the full spectrum of presentation of SAH and failure to know the limitations of the major diagnostic tests (computed tomography of the brain and lumbar puncture [LP]). I suggest a strategy for selecting which patients with headache require evaluation beyond history and physical examination and how that evaluation should proceed. Other diagnostic issues are also discussed, such as use of magnetic resonance scanning and angiography for diagnosis, distinguishing the traumatic LP from true SAH, the concept of warning bleeds, and the LP-first diagnostic strategy.

Atypical presentations of acute cerebrovascular syndromes

Correct diagnosis of acute stroke is of paramount importance to clinicians to enable selection of correct treatments and to ensure prevention of acute complications, including recurrent stroke. Timely diagnosis can be difficult in some cases because patients with acute stroke can present with atypical or uncommon symptoms that suggest another cause altogether. Publications on these patients suggest that the following strategies could help to reduce misdiagnosis. First, clinicians should suspect stroke in any patient with abrupt onset of neurological symptoms. Second, clinicians should be aware that some patients will initially present with various uncommon and atypical stroke symptoms. Third, a complete and systematic neurological examination should be routinely done in patients presenting with acute neurological symptoms because this might shed light on the true nature of the problem. Finally, clinicians should be aware that even with the most sophisticated neuroimaging tests, stroke might be missed in the early hours after the event.

Diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage in the emergency department

To decide which patients with headache ought to be evaluated for SAH, physicians should focus on specific elements of the patient history, such as onset, severity, and quality of the headache and associated symptoms. These questions should be asked and the responses documented for every patient with a headache. The physical examination should be compulsive with regard to vital signs, HEENT. and neurologic signs. Then, the physician should form an explicit differential diagnosis and have reasons for diagnosing migraine, tension, or sinus headache and other benign causes. If there is no clear-cut alternative hypothesis, the patient should be evaluated by CT and LP (if the CT is negative, equivocal, or technically inadequate). Physicians should understand the limitations of this diagnostic algorithm. In addition, the CSF should be carefully analyzed, including measuring the opening pressure. In patients whose CT scans and CSF analyses are normal, further testing is rarely indicated.

ED patients with vertigo: can we identify clinical factors associated with acute stroke?

BACKGROUND Vertigo is a common emergency department (ED) complaint with benign and serious etiologies with overlapping features. Misdiagnosis of acute stroke may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to computer tomography (CT) for diagnosis of acute stroke but is costly with limited availability. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to identify clinical characteristics associated with a cerebrovascular cause for vertigo. METHODS We performed a retrospective chart review on patients with an MRI for vertigo, with or without additional historical or physical examination findings, over 18 months. Study patients were seen in the ED for vertigo within 2 weeks of MRI. Data collected included medical history, physical findings, and imaging results. Fishers exact test was used to identify factors associated with the primary outcome, an acute stroke. RESULTS There were 325 eligible patients; 131 were ED patients. Patients were 57 (± 18) years, and 53% were women. There were 12 ED patients with a new stroke (9.2%). Two variables were associated with acute stroke: a presenting complaint of gait instability (odds ratio, 9.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-33.9) or a subtle neurologic finding (odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-33.1). One patient with a new stroke had a prior stroke, 3 were age >65 years, and none had coronary artery disease or dysrhythmia. Among patients with acute stroke, 5 also had head CT, and none detected the stroke. CONCLUSIONS This study identified 2 variables associated with acute stroke that should be considered in the evaluation of ED patients with vertigo. Head CT was inadequate for diagnosing acute stroke in this patient population.

Diagnosis of reversible causes of coma

Because coma has many causes, physicians must develop a structured, algorithmic approach to diagnose and treat reversible causes rapidly. The three main mechanisms of coma are structural brain lesions, diffuse neuronal dysfunction, and, rarely, psychiatric causes. The first priority is to stabilise the patient by treatment of life-threatening conditions, then to use the history, physical examination, and laboratory findings to identify structural causes and diagnose treatable disorders. Some patients have a clear diagnosis. In those who do not, the first decision is whether brain imaging is needed. Imaging should be done in post-traumatic coma or when structural brain lesions are probable or possible causes. Patients who do not undergo imaging should be reassessed regularly. If CT is non-diagnostic, a checklist should be used use to indicate whether advanced imaging is needed or evidence is present of a treatable poisoning or infection, seizures including non-convulsive status epilepticus, endocrinopathy, or thiamine deficiency.