Retrospective Review of Pregnant Patients Presenting for Evaluation of Acute Neurologic Complaints.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Data suggest an increase in neurologic-related hospitalizations during pregnancy. It is crucial for health care providers to develop effective strategies to evaluate this young, generally healthy cohort of patients for whom missed neurologic diagnoses can have devastating results. We aim to describe the epidemiology of this high risk patient population by investigating exam findings, imaging studies, and clinical outcomes of pregnant women presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute neurologic complaints. METHODS: We conducted a 7-year retrospective chart review of pregnant patients presenting with neurologic chief complaints to the emergency department of an urban tertiary academic medical center in the northeastern United States. We investigated examination findings, imaging studies, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, 205 pregnant patients presented to the ED with a neurologic chief complaint. The majority of patients had a normal neurologic examination result. Patients with an abnormal examination result were not more likely to have clinically significant imaging findings. Within our population, 28% underwent imaging, and noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging was the most common modality. Five patients had clinically significant imaging findings. Specifically, 3.3% of patients with abnormal examination result had significant findings and 2.3% of those with a normal examination result had significant findings. A minority of the patients with a visit resulting in discharge (9.8%) returned to the ED within a 7-day period. None required additional neuroimaging. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, our study is unique in that it incorporated all neurologic complaints. Headache was the most common complaint, followed by dizziness and seizures. Most of the headaches were related to first-trimester migraines. There was a high incidence of imaging used in clinical practice even when there was a normal neurologic examination result. A normal examination result does not adequately exclude serious intracranial pathology, and diagnostic vigilance is justified.