Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020; 8(1): e3 OR I G I N A L RE S E A RC H Characteristics of S100B and Neuron Specific Enolase in Differentiating Acute Vertigo Cases with Central Cause; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study Javad Mozafari1, Hassan Motamed1, Kambiz Masoumi2∗, Mohammad Ghasem Hanafi3, Mohammad Ali Fahimi1, Zahra Derakhshani1, Farzaneh Ehyaie4 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Golestan General Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Khomeini General Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 3. Department of Radiology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 4. Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. Received: October 2019; Accepted: December 2019; Published online: 28 January 2020 Abstract: Introduction: Differentiating central vertigo from peripheral ones poses a challenge to specialists. The present study aimed to examine the potential screening value of S100B and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) in this regard. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study recruited adult acute vertigo patients with suspected central causes visiting the emergency department (ED) in the first six hours since the onset of symptoms. The screening performance characteristics of S100B and NSE biomarkers in differentiating central vertigo cases were measured considering brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the reference test. Results: 85 cases who met the cri- teria were enrolled to the study (82.3% female). The MRI of 21 (24.7%) cases had abnormal findings. The two groups were the same in terms of age, sex, and vital signs. Patients with abnormal brain MRI had significantly higher levels of S100B (p < 0.001) and NSE (p < 0.001). S100B and NSE had area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 90.3 (95% CI: 80.7 – 99.8) and 96.9 (95% CI: 93.7 – 100.0) in differentiating the cen- tral causes of acute vertigo, respectively. At the cut-off point of above 119.68 pg/l, S100b had sensitivity of 90.00% (95% CI: 78.83 – 95.86) and specificity of 92.00% (95% CI: 72.49 – 98.60). The sensitivity and specificity of NSE at the cut-off point of above 18.12 ng/ml were 100.00% (95% CI: 93.14 – 100.00) and 89.47% (95% CI: 65.46 – 98.15), respectively. Conclusion: The serum levels of S100B and NSE were significantly higher in patients with central vertigo, and could therefore be considered as accurate tools in screening acute vertigo cases with central causes in ED. Keywords: Vestibular neuronitis; biomarkers; S100B protein, human; phosphopyruvate hydratase; vertigo Cite this article as: Mozafari J, Motamed H, Masoumi K, Hanafi M G, Fahimi M A, Derakhshani Z, Ehyaie F. Characteristics of S100B and Neuron Specific Enolase in Differentiating Acute Vertigo Cases with Central Cause; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2020; 8(1): e3. 1. Introduction Vertigo is a common cause of visits to the emergency depart- ment (ED), with a prevalence of 40% in those aged above 40 years (1). Given its numerous causes, differentiating cen- tral vertigo from peripheral ones poses a challenge to spe- cialists (2). Central causes and brain vascular accidents as- ∗Corresponding Author: Kambiz Masoumi; Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Khomeini General Hospital, Ahvaz, Iran. Email: emda- jums@yahoo.com, Tel: +98613311 sociated with vertigo are life-threatening and it is vital to find a quick and accessible method for diagnosing central vertigo and posterior cerebral circulation stroke in the ED (3). Since the vertebra-basilar circulation supplies impor- tant structures such as the brain stem (4), cerebellum, and ventricular and inner ear cochlear structures, acute isolated vertigo may be caused by lack of circulation or stroke in the midbrain (5). A rapid and timely diagnosis of brain ischemia as an emergency cause of vertigo can accelerate therapeu- tic measures and improve prognosis (6). So far, brain mag- netic resonance imaging (MRI) has been the best diagnostic method for diagnosing the cause of vague vertigo (7). Yet, This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem J. Mozafari et al. 2 MRI cannot be used for all patients with unclear diagnosis as it is not always accessible and is costly (8). Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) is a candidate biomarker for central nervous system (CNS) damage that passes the blood- brain barrier (BBB) (9). Its neuropath logical levels occur in head trauma accidents or neurological diseases. The normal level of NSE can reliably rule out major CNS pathologies (10). The main advantage of using NSE is that its increased serum or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentration can be a sensitive tool for determining CNS damage at a molecular level be- fore gross changes emerge. An increase in NSE level has been reported before any detectable changes in intracranial pres- sure, neuroimaging, and neurological examination findings (11, 12). Another biomarker of CNS damage proposed in the last decade as a peripheral marker of BBB permeability is the calcium-binding protein S100B (13, 14). Few studies have measured it in patients complaining of acute vertigo present- ing to ED in order to differentiate peripheral vertigo from that caused by posterior circulation stroke (15). Serum biomark- ers may be effective in determining the need for imaging. The present study aimed to examine the potential screening values of S100B and NSE in differentiating true vertigo cases with central causes in the ED. 2. Methods 2.1. Study design and setting This prospective cross-sectional study recruited adult acute vertigo patients with suspected central causes visiting the ED of Golestan Hospital, Ahvaz, Iran from 2017 to 2018, within the first six hours since the onset of symptoms. The decla- ration of Helsinki for research involving human subjects was considered and the Ethics Committee of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (IR.AJUMS.REC.1395.529 and IR.AJUMS.REC.1396.1033) approved the study protocol. All patients provided written informed consent before entering the study. 2.2. Participants Patients above 18 years old, with chief complaint of acute ver- tigo, negative history of vertigo or idiopathic cranial or audi- tory system pathologies that are classified as central vertigo, and patients without any persistent neurological deficits like weakness or unsteadiness were included. Patients not will- ing to participate were excluded. History of head trauma, disorders on the electrocardiogram (ECG) such as conduc- tive disorders, dysrhythmia, or cardiac ischemia, other neu- rological exams besides vertigo during examination, visit- ing later than six hours after the onset of vertigo, having in- tracranial pathologies in previous radiological examination (e.g. space-occupying masses or previous surgery), con- traindication for performing brain MRI, diseases such as pul- monary Squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC), neuroblastoma, melanoma, seminoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, tumors, car- cinoids, teratoma, malignant pheochromocytoma, Guillain– Barre syndrome, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease were also among the exclusion criteria. 2.3. Study Protocol Data were gathered from all eligible patients, initial exami- nations were performed, and ECGs were obtained. Soon af- ter initial stabilization, in addition to obtaining regular ve- nous blood samples, a venous blood sample was taken by the ED nurse (trained research assistant) specifically for S100B and NSE biomarkers, and the time of sampling was recorded. Then, patients were referred to the imaging department for brain MRI. Blood samples (10 ml) were taken in gel tubes and rested for 30 minutes to clot. The samples were then centrifuged for 10 minutes at 800 to 1000 rpm in the ED laboratory. Serum samples were diluted with 1 ml of distilled water and then transferred to test tubes. The preliminary sam- ple was sent to the laboratory for measuring the biomark- ers. Prior to the final analysis, the samples were maintained at -20 ◦C; they were assayed separately using electrochemi- luminescence method. Furthermore, all laboratory person- nel were blinded to patient data and imaging findings of the two groups. Preliminary brain diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) of all patients was separately ordered by an emer- gency medicine specialist and performed using a single MRI machine and interpreted by a neurologist and a radiologist, both blinded to the biomarker results. Serum samples were taken within a maximum of six hours after the onset of ver- tigo. Finally, patients were divided into two groups of positive and negative MRI findings, and the levels of biomarkers were compared across the two groups. 2.4. Statistical Analysis All data were analyzed using SPSS, described using mean and standard deviation (SD) for quantitative, and frequency and percentage for qualitative variables. T-test or Mann Whit- ney U test as well as Chi-squared test were used for analyz- ing the data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated in order to determine the predic- tive value of S100B and NSE and the optimal cut-off point of S100B and NSE for distinguishing central vertigo based on the best sensitivity and specificity. All results are reported with 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 3 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020; 8(1): e3 Figure 1: STARD flowchart diagram. Table 1: Comparing the baseline characteristics of patients with positive and negative brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings Variables Brain MRI Findings P Value Positive (n=21) Negative(n=64) Gender (female) 10 (47.6) 60 (93.7) 0.073 Age (years) 49.63 ± 14.74 53.06 ± 16.45 0.398 Vital signs SBP (mmHg) 141.12 ± 17.03 138.48 ± 21.91 0.616 DBP (mmHg) 84.09 ± 10.98 77.07 ± 12.17 0.021 RR (/minute) 17.05 ± 2.04 16.80 ± 1.34 0.383 PR (/minute) 79.00 ± 5.70 80.53 ± 5.88 0.300 Temperature (C) 36.50 ± 0.321 36.46 ± 0.32 0.603 SpO2 (%) 98.08 ± 0.97 97.91 ± 0.93 0.484 Biomarker level S100B (pg/ml) 217.13 ± 119.28 77.39 ± 31.67 <0.001 NSE (ng/ml) 30.90 ± 7.34 10.92 ± 6.34 <0.001 Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%). SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; RR: respiratory rate; PR: pulse rate; SpO2 : peripheral capillary oxygen saturation; NSE: neuron specific enolase. 3. Results 3.1. Baseline characteristics of studied patients 130 patients with acute vertigo and possible central causes were evaluated and finally 85 cases who met the criteria were enrolled in the study (82.3% female; Figure 1). The MRI of 64 (75.3%) cases was normal and the other 21 patients had chronic ischemic changes. Mean age of the patients was 53.06Âś16.45 years in the normal MRI group and 49.63 ± 14.74 years in the abnormal group. Baseline characteristics of patients in both groups are given in Table 1. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, and vital signs. Patients with abnormal brain MRI findings had significantly higher levels of S100B (p < 0.001) and NSE (p < 0.001). 3.2. Screening value of studied biomarkers Table 2 summarizes the screening performance characteris- tics of S100B and NSE biomarkers in differentiating the cen- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem J. Mozafari et al. 4 Table 2: Screening performance characteristics of S100B and neuron specific enolase (NSE) biomarkers in differentiating acute vertigo cases with central cause Characteristics S100B NSE True positive 54 66 True negative 23 17 False positive 2 2 False negative 6 0 Sensitivity 90.00 (78.83 – 95.86) 100.00 (93.14 – 100.00) Specificity 92.00 (72.49 – 98.60) 89.47 (65.46 – 98.15) Positive predictive value 96.42 (86.61 – 99.37) 97.05 (88.83 – 99.48) Negative predictive value 79.31 (59.73 – 91.29) 100.00 (77.07 – 100.00) Positive likelihood ratio 27.00 (6.91 -105.39) 33.00 (8.41 – 129.34) Negative likelihood ratio 0.26 (0.12 – 0.54) 0.00 (0.00 – NaN) Total accuracy 90.3 (80.7 – 99.8) 96.9 (93.7 – 100.0) Data are presented with 95% confidence interval (CI). NaN: the calculation cannot be performed because the values entered include one or more instances of zero. Figure 2: The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of S100B and neuron specific enolase (NSE) biomark- ers in differentiating acute vertigo cases with central cause. tral causes of acute vertigo. S100B had the area under the ROC curve of 90.3 (95% CI: 80.7 – 99.8) for differentiating the causes of acute vertigo (figure 2), and at the cut-off point of above 119.68 pg/l, had sensitivity of 90.00% and specificity of 92.00%, in detecting cases with abnormal MRI findings (cen- tral cause of vertigo). In addition, the NSE biomarker in pa- tients with acute vertigo had the area under the ROC curve of 96.9 (95% CI: 93.7 – 100.0; figure 2), and at a cut-off point of above 18.12 ng/ml, had sensitivity of 100.00% and specificity of 89.47%, indicating the central nature of vertigo. 3.3. Discussion Our findings revealed that S100B and NSE have accept- able screening performance characteristics in differentiating acute vertigo cases with central causes. The cause of ver- tigo may be central (brainstem, cerebellum, or brain involve- ment) or peripheral (vestibule-cochlear nerve or inner ear labyrinth), systemic (cardiac or metabolic diseases) or psy- chological (e.g. anxiety). Central vertigo may be dangerous and even lead to mortality. Yet, it is often difficult to diag- nose the cause of vertigo, and only MRI imaging has so far been used as the gold standard for diagnosing these cases (16). Kartal et al. examined the serum level of S100B in 82 acute vertigo patients within six hours since the emergence of symptoms and reported a sensitivity of 83.9% and speci- ficity of 51% for diagnosing the central cause of vertigo in cases of serum concentration of above 30 pg/ml (15). Our results showed that serum level of S100B and NSE biomark- ers were significantly higher in patients with abnormal MRI findings. Considering the high sensitivity and specificity at the cut-off point of 19.2 ng/ml, it seems that NSE is more valuable than S100B in differentiating peripheral and central causes of vertigo. In the study by Bharosay et al., NSE level was less than 25 ng/ml in the control group (n=101) and above 25 ng/ml in pa- tients with ischemic stroke (n=70)(17). Moreover, in a study by Bandhyopadhyay et al. on 79 patients with head trauma and GCS<13, blood samples were taken in the first 3.8 hours on average; seven patients with poor outcome and GCS of <5 had the NSE level of 46.4 ± 12.7 ng/ml, and patients with good outcome had the NSE level of 19.5 ± 1.4 ng/ml. In cases of serum concentration of above 21.2 ng/ml, NSE had the sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 74% in predict- ing poor outcome (18). Fridriksson et al. studied patients with head trauma, and reported that the serum level of NSE was higher in 22 patients with abnormal head computed to- mography (CT) scan (26.7 ± 21.4 ng/ml) compared to 28 pa- tients with normal CT (17.7 ± 7.8 ng/ml); serum concentra- tion above 15.3 ng/ml had sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 52% in predicting the presence of abnormal brain CT finding (18). Although patients with head trauma and reduced level This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem 5 Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020; 8(1): e3 of consciousness were excluded in our study, positive MRI findings may be indicative of neurological damage, proba- bly consistent with the probability of abnormal CT in the re- viewed studies. Measuring this biomarker is not costly, it can quickly help diagnose patients suspected of central vertigo in ED, it can reduce hospital stay and costs, and it is easily accessible ev- erywhere compared to MRI. Therefore, it can be used as a screening test with an acceptable accuracy in cases where differentiating central from peripheral causes is difficult. Those with positive test results using this method can be the final candidates for MRI. Of course, studies on larger sam- ples are required in order to determine a more precise cut-off point. 4. Limitation The number of patients with normal MRI findings did not match the number of patients with abnormal MRI findings. A relatively small sample size was another limitation. 5. Conclusion The serum levels of S100B and NSE were significantly higher in patients with central vertigo, and could therefore be con- sidered as accurate tools in screening acute vertigo cases with central causes in ED. It is clear that high-risk cases should be confirmed with brain MRI as the gold standard tool in this regard. 6. Declarations 6.1. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the deputy of research affairs of the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences as part of Zahra Derakhshani (research code: U-95108) and Farzaneh Ehyaie’s (research code: GP96121) theses. 6.2. Author contribution J.M and K.M: conceived the original idea, designed the sce- narios and collected the data M.GH.H, H.M and M.A.F: car- ried out the analysis of data, approved the final version that was submitted, revised it, Z.D and F.E: drafted the manuscript. All the authors met the criteria of authorship based on the recommendations of the international commit- tee of medical journal editors. Authors ORCIDs Javad Mozafari: 0000-0002-8903-7138 Hassan Motamed: 0000-0001-9062-085X Kambiz Masoumi: 0000-0001-7234-5671 Mohammad Ghasem Hanafi: 0000-0001-9153-3029 6.3. Funding/Support This study was funded by Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. 6.4. Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References 1. Wipperman J. Dizziness and Vertigo. Primary care. 2014;41(1):115-31. 2. Kerber KA, Meurer WJ, West BT, Fendrick AM. Dizziness presentations in U.S. emergency departments, 1995- 2004. Academic emergency medicine : official jour- nal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2008;15(8):744-50. 3. Peng B. Cervical Vertigo: Historical Reviews and Ad- vances. World neurosurgery. 2018;109:347-50. 4. Hussami A, Casulli C, Fayard C, Caillier-Minier M, Vion P, Minier D. Vertebrobasilar stroke secondary to giant-cell arteritis without biological inflammatory syndrome. Re- vue neurologique. 2016;172(3):250-2. 5. Dieterich M, Glasauer S, Brandt T. Why acute unilat- eral vestibular midbrain lesions rarely manifest with rotational vertigo: a clinical and modelling approach to head direction cell function. Journal of neurology. 2018;265(5):1184-98. 6. Schiff L, Hadker N, Weiser S, Rausch C. A literature re- view of the feasibility of glial fibrillary acidic protein as a biomarker for stroke and traumatic brain injury. Molecu- lar diagnosis & therapy. 2012;16(2):79-92. 7. Bruzzone MG, Grisoli M, De Simone T, Regna-Gladin C. Neuroradiological features of vertigo. Neurological sci- ences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Soci- ety and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2004;25 Suppl 1:S20-3. 8. Newman-Toker DE, Della Santina CC, Blitz AM. Ver- tigo and hearing loss. Handbook of clinical neurology. 2016;136:905-21. 9. Haque A, Ray SK, Cox A, Banik NL. Neuron specific eno- lase: a promising therapeutic target in acute spinal cord injury. Metabolic brain disease. 2016;31(3):487-95. 10. Samanci Y, Samanci B, Sahin E, Altiokka-Uzun G, Ku- cukali CI, Tuzun E, et al. Neuron-specific enolase lev- els as a marker for possible neuronal damage in idio- pathic intracranial hypertension. Acta neurologica Bel- gica. 2017;117(3):707-11. 11. Liu B, Xie Z, Liu G, Gu Y, Pan S, Wang H. Elevated neuron- specific enolase and S100 calcium-binding protein B concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor encephalitis. Clinica This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem J. Mozafari et al. 6 chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry. 2018;480:79-83. 12. Olivecrona M, Rodling-Wahlstrom M, Naredi S, Koski- nen LO. S-100B and neuron specific enolase are poor outcome predictors in severe traumatic brain injury treated by an intracranial pressure targeted therapy. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2009;80(11):1241-7. 13. Kogel D, Peters M, Konig HG, Hashemi SM, Bui NT, Arolt V, et al. S100B potently activates p65/c-Rel transcrip- tional complexes in hippocampal neurons: Clinical im- plications for the role of S100B in excitotoxic brain injury. Neuroscience. 2004;127(4):913-20. 14. Hajdukova L, Sobek O, Prchalova D, Bilkova Z, Koudelkova M, Lukaskova J, et al. Biomarkers of Brain Damage: S100B and NSE Concentrations in Cere- brospinal Fluid–A Normative Study. BioMed research international. 2015;2015:379071. 15. Kartal AG, Yilmaz S, Yaka E, Pekdemir M, Sarisoy HT, Cek- men MB, et al. Diagnostic value of S100B protein in the differential diagnosis of acute vertigo in the emergency department. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2014;21(7):736-41. 16. Thelin EP, Nelson DW, Bellander BM. A review of the clinical utility of serum S100B protein levels in the as- sessment of traumatic brain injury. Acta neurochirurgica. 2017;159(2):209-25. 17. Dijkhuizen RM. Advances in MRI-Based Detection of Cerebrovascular Changes after Experimental Traumatic Brain Injury. Translational stroke research. 2011;2(4):524- 32. 18. Bandyopadhyay S, Hennes H, Gorelick MH, Wells RG, Walsh-Kelly CM. Serum neuron-specific enolase as a pre- dictor of short-term outcome in children with closed traumatic brain injury. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2005;12(8):732-8. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/aaem Introduction Methods Results Limitation Conclusion Declarations References