Diagnostic Contribution of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computerized Tomography in Patients with Unidentified Vertigo and Normal Neurologic Examination in Emergency Medicine.

Background: Vertigo and dizziness are common symptoms in patients presenting to emergency medicine (ED) clinics. Vertigo may be caused by peripheral or central origin. Routine imaging is not indicated; however, neuroimaging is increasing, and published studies have revealed a small number of positive findings on imaging modalities. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate whether neurological imaging was necessary in patients classified as "unidentified vertigo," who were admitted to the emergency department with vertiginous complaints and not revealing typical peripheral vertigo findings and any neurological deficits. Materials and Methods: All patients with "dizzy symptoms" were included in the study. For patients who met the definition of "unidentified vertigo," experimental neurological imaging studies were done. Head computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gradient-echo sequences (GRE), and diffusion weighted images (DWI) were used for imaging. Patients who underwent neuroimaging in the ED were followed up for 6 months in Neurology and ENT clinics. Results: A total of 351 patients were included in the study. Experimental imaging was performed on 100 patients. CT detected a significant pathology associated with the vertigo complaint in only one patient. MRI results were similar to the CT results. MRI-GRE sequences showed some additional pathologies in 14 patients and 4 of them were thought to be related to vertiginous symptoms. None of the patients classified as "non-central causes of vertigo" in the neuroimaging group developed TIA or CVD during 6 months of follow-up. Conclusion: Head CT can be adequate to exclude life-threatening central pathology in "undifferentiated vertigo patients" and the addition of MRI did not add any diagnostic accuracy in ED management. Using the physical examination findings effectively to make a specific diagnosis may reduce misdiagnosis and improve resource utilization.

Resuscitation quality of rotating chest compression providers at one-minute vs. two-minute intervals: A mannequin study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized cross-over study was to compare one-minute and two-minute continuous chest compressions in terms of chest compression only CPR quality metrics on a mannequin model in the ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six emergency medicine residents participated in this study. In the 1-minute group, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean compression rate (p=0.83), mean compression depth (p=0.61), good compressions (p=0.31), the percentage of complete release (p=0.07), adequate compression depth (p=0.11) or the percentage of good rate (p=51) over the four-minute time period. Only flow time was statistically significant among the 1-minute intervals (p<0.001). In the 2-minute group, the mean compression depth (p=0.19), good compression (p=0.92), the percentage of complete release (p=0.28), adequate compression depth (p=0.96), and the percentage of good rate (p=0.09) were not statistically significant over time. In this group, the number of compressions (248±31 vs 253±33, p=0.01) and mean compression rates (123±15 vs 126±17, p=0.01) and flow time (p=0.001) were statistically significant along the two-minute intervals. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of chest compressions per minute, mean chest compression depth, the percentage of good compressions, complete release, adequate chest compression depth and percentage of good compression between the 1-minute and 2-minute groups. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in the quality metrics of chest compressions between 1- and 2-minute chest compression only groups.