Implementation of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanner dedicated to emergencies in cases of binocular diplopia: Impact on patient management.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the implementation of an MRI scanner dedicated to emergencies on the management of patients admitted in the emergency department (ED) for binocular diplopia (BD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective non-interventional single-center study from February 2018 to February 2020. A total of 110 patients were included: 52 patients during the first stage (29 women; 23 men; mean age 65.2 years); 58 during the second stage (29 women; 29 men; mean age 51.4 years). Patients underwent an enhanced-CT examination in the first stage and an MRI examination in the second stage. Criteria used to evaluate the new management of patients were: proportion of patients with an imaging diagnosis explaining BD, turnaround time (TT), ED length of stay (EDLOS), hospital admission rate, hospital length of stay (HLOS), number of MRI examinations requested as a second procedure for the same indication and radiation doses. Descriptive statistics were used to present results with Student's test for quantitative variables and chi-square test for qualitative variables. RESULTS: Respectively 1 (1.92%) and 17 (29.31%) patients had definitive diagnosis in stages 1 and 2, with a significant difference in examination modalities (p=0.0001). The TT, EDLOS, hospital admission rate, and HLOS were not significantly different between the two stages. Radiation dose was significantly different between the two groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an MRI scanner dedicated to emergencies can improve the etiological diagnostic performance of binocular diplopia and reduce patient's exposure to ionizing radiation without increasing the average turnaround time or emergency department length of stay.

MRI dedicated to the emergency department for diplopia or dizziness: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of diagnostic workup without and with MRI dedicated to the ED. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational uncontrolled before-after study in one ED of a university hospital in France from July 1, 2018, and January 3, 2020. We included all consecutive patients presenting with dizziness or diplopia. The main outcomes were the clinical decision time of ED physicians and the total costs for each strategy. Outcomes were compared using propensity score with inverse probability weighting in the 2 arms and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Among the 199 patients during the "before" period (average age: 60.4 years ± 17.6): 112 men (57%), and 181 during the "after" period (average age, 54.8 years ± 18.5): 107 men (59%), the average costs were €2701 (95% CI 1918; 3704) and €2389 (95% CI: €1627; 3280) per patient, respectively. The average time to clinical decision was 9.8 h (95% CI: 8.9 10.7) in the group "before" and 7.7 h (95% CI: 7.1; 8.4) in the group "after" (ICER: €151 saved for a reduction of 1 h in clinical decision time). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 71% chance that the MRI dedicated to ED was dominant (less costly and more effective). CONCLUSION: Easy access to MRI in the ED for posterior circulation stroke-like symptoms must be considered a relevant approach to help physicians for an appropriate and rapid diagnostic with reduction of costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03660852 KEY POINTS: • A dedicated MRI in the ED for diplopia or dizziness may be considered an efficient strategy improving diagnostic performance, reducing physicians' decision time, and decreasing hospital costs. • This strategy supports clinical decision-making with early treatment and management of patients with posterior circulation-like symptoms in the ED. • There is 71% chance that the MRI dedicated to ED was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared with a strategy without dedicated MRI.

Evaluation of neuroradiology emergency MRI interpretations: low discrepancy rates between on-call radiology residents' preliminary interpretations and neuroradiologists' final reports.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of on-call radiology residents in interpreting alone brain and spine MRI studies performed after hours, to describe their mistakes, and to identify influencing factors that increased the occurrence of errors. METHODS: A total of 328 MRI examinations performed during a 13-month period (from December 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021) were prospectively included. Discrepancies between the preliminary interpretation of on-call radiology residents and the final reports of attending neuroradiologists were noted and classified according to a three-level score: level 1 (perfect interpretation or minor correction), level 2 (important correction without immediate change in patient management), or level 3 (major correction with immediate change in patient management). Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The overall discrepancy rate (level-2 and level-3 errors) was 16%; the rate of major discrepancies (only level-3 errors) was 5.5%. The major-discrepancy rate of second-year residents, when compared with that of senior residents, was significantly higher (p = 0.02). Almost all of the level-3 errors concerned cerebrovascular pathology. The most common level-2 errors involved undescribed aneurysms. We found no significant difference in the major-discrepancy rate regarding time since the beginning of the shift. CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of examinations were correctly interpreted. The rate of major discrepancies in our study was comparable to the data in the literature, and there was no adverse clinical outcome. The level of residency has an effect on the rate of serious errors in residents' reports. KEY POINTS: • The rate of major discrepancies between preliminary MRI interpretations by on-call radiology residents and final reports by attending neuroradiologists is low, and comparable to discrepancy rates reported for head CT interpretations. • The youngest residents made significantly more serious errors when compared to senior residents. • There was no adverse clinical outcome in patient morbidity as a result of an initial misdiagnosis.