Video Suppression Head Impulses and Head Impulses Paradigms in Patients with Vestibular Neuritis: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Background: This study aims to explore the clinical relevance of the Suppression Head Impulse Paradigm (SHIMP) to better understand if it represents an additional clinical value compared to the Head Impulse Paradigm (HIMP) in patients with vestibular neuritis (VN) in different stages of the disease. Methods: From January 2020 to June 2022, patients with unilateral VN were found in a database of an ENT vestibular clinic. Clinical presentation, vestibular test outcomes, therapy, and recovery were examined in medical records. Results: A total of 42 patients (16 Females, mean age 51.06 ± 12.96; 26 Male, mean age 62.50 ± 9.82) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. The means of the VOR gain for both paradigms were respectively 0.38 ± 0.12 (SHIMP) and 0.46 ± 0.13 (HIMP) at T0 and 0.55 ± 0.20 (SHIMP) and 0.64 ± 0.19 (HIMP) at T1 for the lesional side. For the HIMP, the gain value <0.76 identified the affected side of VN with 100% sensitivity (92–100) and 100% specificity (91–100). For the SHIMP, the gain value <0.66 identified the affected side of VN with 100% sensitivity (92–100) and 100% specificity (91–100) and an AUC of 1.0 (0.96–1.0, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The SHIMP paradigm has a diagnostic accuracy equal to the classic HIMP paradigm in patients with VN. The assessment of VOR slow phase velocity and vestibulo-saccadic interaction in patients with VN could be easier with the use of the SHIMPs paradigm. SHIMPs paradigm provides helpful information about the evaluation of VOR slow phase velocity and vestibulo-saccadic interaction as new recovery strategies in patients with VN.