Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Institute of Medical Technology, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus - Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany.
J Vestib Res. 2024;34(1):49-61. doi: 10.3233/VES-230083.
A normal video Head Impulse Test is the gold standard in the emergency department to rule-in patients with an acute vestibular syndrome and a stroke. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of vHIT metrics regarding the vestibulo-ocular reflex gain and the corrective saccades in detecting vestibular strokes.
Prospective cross-sectional study (convenience sample) of patients presenting with acute vestibular syndrome in the emergency department of a tertiary referral centre between February 2015 and May 2020. We screened 1677 patients and enrolled 76 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria of acute vestibular syndrome. All patients underwent video head impulse test with automated and manual data analysis. A delayed MRI served as a gold standard for vestibular stroke confirmation.
Out of 76 patients, 52 were diagnosed with acute unilateral vestibulopathy and 24 with vestibular strokes. The overall accuracy of detecting stroke with an automated vestibulo-ocular reflex gain was 86.8%, compared to 77.6% for cumulative saccade amplitude and automatic saccade mean peak velocity measured by an expert and 71% for cumulative saccade amplitude and saccade mean peak velocity measured automatically. Gain misclassified 13.1% of the patients as false positive or false negative, manual cumulative saccade amplitude and saccade mean peak velocity 22.3%, and automated cumulative saccade amplitude and saccade mean peak velocity 28.9% respectively.
We found a better accuracy of video head impulse test for the diagnosis of vestibular strokes when using the vestibulo-ocular reflex gain than using saccade metrics. Nevertheless, saccades provide an additional and important information for video head impulse test evaluation. The automated saccade detection algorithm is not yet perfect compared to expert analysis, but it may become a valuable tool for future non-expert video head impulse test evaluations.
正常视频眼震试验是急诊科排除急性前庭综合征和卒中患者的金标准。我们旨在比较视频眼震试验(vHIT)的前庭眼反射增益和矫正扫视的诊断准确性,以检测前庭卒中。
这是一项 2015 年 2 月至 2020 年 5 月期间在三级转诊中心急诊科就诊的急性前庭综合征患者的前瞻性横断面研究(便利样本)。我们筛查了 1677 例患者,纳入了符合急性前庭综合征纳入标准的 76 例患者。所有患者均接受了视频眼震试验,包括自动和手动数据分析。延迟 MRI 作为前庭卒中确诊的金标准。
76 例患者中,52 例诊断为急性单侧前庭病,24 例诊断为前庭卒中。自动测量的前庭眼反射增益检测卒中的总体准确性为 86.8%,而累积扫视幅度和专家测量的自动扫视平均峰值速度的准确性分别为 77.6%,自动测量的累积扫视幅度和自动扫视平均峰值速度的准确性分别为 71%。增益错误分类了 13.1%的患者为假阳性或假阴性,手动累积扫视幅度和平均扫视峰值速度分别为 22.3%,自动累积扫视幅度和平均扫视峰值速度分别为 28.9%。
与扫视指标相比,我们发现视频眼震试验诊断前庭卒中时,使用前庭眼反射增益的准确性更高。尽管如此,扫视提供了视频眼震试验评估的额外重要信息。与专家分析相比,自动扫视检测算法还不够完善,但它可能成为未来非专家视频眼震试验评估的有价值工具。