-
Brain and Behavior Dec 2020Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic disorder with fluctuating symptoms of dizziness, unsteadiness, or vertigo for at least three months. Its...
BACKGROUND
Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic disorder with fluctuating symptoms of dizziness, unsteadiness, or vertigo for at least three months. Its pathophysiological mechanisms give theoretical support for the use of multimodal treatment. However, there are different therapeutic programs and principles available, and their clinical effectiveness remains elusive.
METHODS
A database of patients who participated in a day care multimodal treatment program was analyzed regarding the therapeutic effects on PPPD. Vertigo Severity Scale (VSS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were assessed before and 6 months after therapy.
RESULTS
Of a total of 657 patients treated with a tertiary care multimodal treatment program, 46.4% met the criteria for PPPD. PPPD patients were younger than patients with somatic diagnoses and complained more distress due to dizziness. 63.6% completed the follow-up questionnaire. All patients showed significant changes in VSS and HADS anxiety, but the PPPD patients generally showed a tendency to improve more than the patients with somatic diagnoses. The change in the autonomic-anxiety subscore of VSS only reached statistical significance when comparing PPPD with somatic diagnoses (p = .002).
CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic principles comprise cognitive-behavioral therapy, vestibular rehabilitation exercises, and serotonergic medication. However, large-scale, randomized, controlled trials are still missing. Follow-up observations after multimodal interdisciplinary therapy reveal an improvement in symptoms in most patients with chronic dizziness. The study was not designed to detect diagnosis-specific effects, but patients with PPPD and patients with other vestibular disorders benefit from multimodal therapies.
Topics: Anxiety; Combined Modality Therapy; Dizziness; Humans; Vertigo; Vestibular Diseases
PubMed: 32989916
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1864 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Oct 2022Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) present with dizziness, cervical spine dysfunctions, and postural imbalance, symptoms that can significantly impact their daily functioning.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with CGD.
METHODS
Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (last search 15 May 2021). Outcome measures included dizziness, cervical spine, and balance parameters. Cochrane standard methodological procedures were used and included the RoB 2.0 and GRADE. Where possible, RCTs were pooled for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (n = 898 patients) of high (two RCTs), moderate (five RCTs), and low (six RCTs) methodological quality were analyzed. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Only three RCTs specified the cause of CGD. They showed inconsistent findings for the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with traumatic CGD. Manual therapy and manual therapy combined with exercise therapy may reduce CGD, cervical spine, and balance dysfunctions.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate quality of evidence that manual therapy reduces CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms. When manual therapy is combined with exercise therapy, the positive effect on CGD, cervical spine, and balance symptoms is even stronger. However, the quality of the evidence here is very low.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Dizziness; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Vertigo
PubMed: 35383538
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2022.2033044 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2023History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings.
METHODS
This study involved a patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed.
RESULTS
From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination-five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%-61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%-98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis-four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%-23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%-99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia-10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%-87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%-96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs-four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%-36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%-99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)-17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%-85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%-95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus-six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%-74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%-74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type-16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%-60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%-99.7%, moderate]); test of skew-15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%-35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%-98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)-14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%-97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%-91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)-five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%-100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%-93.0%, high).
CONCLUSIONS
Most neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dizziness; Stroke; Vertigo; Emergency Service, Hospital; Nystagmus, Pathologic; Physical Examination
PubMed: 36453134
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14630 -
BMC Geriatrics Nov 2020Vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are among the most relevant contributors to the burden of disability among older adults living in the community and...
BACKGROUND
Vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are among the most relevant contributors to the burden of disability among older adults living in the community and associated with immobility, limitations of activities of daily living and decreased participation. The aim of this study was to identify the quality of evidence of physical therapy interventions that address mobility and participation in older patients with VDB and to characterize the used primary and secondary outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search via MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro, forward citation tracing and hand search was conducted initially in 11/2017 and updated in 7/2019. We included individual and cluster-randomized controlled trials and trials with quasi-experimental design, published between 2007 and 2017/2019 and including individuals ≥65 years with VDB. Physical therapy and related interventions were reviewed with no restrictions to outcome measurement. Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by two independent researchers. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of interventions and outcome measures. Therefore, a narrative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 20 randomized and 2 non-randomized controlled trials with 1876 patients met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of complexity of interventions, outcome measures and methodological quality. Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) was examined in twelve studies, computer-assisted VR (CAVR) in five, Tai Chi as VR (TCVR) in three, canal repositioning manoeuvres (CRM) in one and manual therapy (MT) in one study. Mixed effects were found regarding body structure/function and activities/participation. Quality of life and/or falls were assessed, with no differences between groups. VR is with moderate quality of evidence superior to usual care to improve balance, mobility and symptoms.
CONCLUSION
To treat older individuals with VDB, VR in any variation and in addition to CRMs seems to be effective. High-quality randomized trials need to be conducted to inform clinical decision making.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017080291 .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Dizziness; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Vertigo
PubMed: 33228601
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01899-9 -
Journal of Vestibular Research :... 2022This paper describes the Bárány Society Classification OverSight Committee (COSC) position on Cervical Dizziness, sometimes referred to as Cervical Vertigo. This...
This paper describes the Bárány Society Classification OverSight Committee (COSC) position on Cervical Dizziness, sometimes referred to as Cervical Vertigo. This involved an initial review by a group of experts across a broad range of fields, and then subsequent review by the Bárány Society COSC. Based upon the so far published literature, the Bárány Society COSC takes the view that the evidence supporting a mechanistic link between an illusory sensation of self-motion (i.e. vertigo - spinning or otherwise) and neck pathology and/or symptoms of neck pain - either by affecting the cervical vertebrae, soft tissue structures or cervical nerve roots - is lacking. When a combined head and neck movement triggers an illusory sensation of spinning, there is either an underlying common vestibular condition such as migraine or BPPV or less commonly a central vestibular condition including, when acute in onset, dangerous conditions (e.g. a dissection of the vertebral artery with posterior circulation stroke and, exceedingly rarely, a vertebral artery compression syndrome). The Committee notes, that migraine, including vestibular migraine, is by far, the commonest cause for the combination of neck pain and vestibular symptoms. The committee also notes that since head movement aggravates symptoms in almost any vestibular condition, the common finding of increased neck muscle tension in vestibular patients, may be linked as both cause and effect, to reduced head movements. Additionally, there are theoretical mechanisms, which have not been explored, whereby cervical pain may promote vaso-vagal, cardio-inhibitory reflexes and hence by presyncopal mechanisms, elicit transient disorientation and/or imbalance. The committee accepts that further research is required to answer the question as to whether those rare cases in which neck muscle spasm is associated with a vague sense of spatial disorientation and/or imbalance, is indeed linked to impaired neck proprioception. Future studies should ideally be placebo controlled and double-blinded where possible, with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria that aim for high specificity at the cost of sensitivity. To facilitate further studies in "cervical dizziness/vertigo", we provide a narrative view of the important confounds investigators should consider when designing controlled mechanistic and therapeutic studies. Hence, currently, the Bárány COSC refrains from proposing any preliminary diagnostic criteria for clinical use outside a research study. This position may change as new research evidence is provided.
Topics: Humans; Dizziness; Neck Pain; Vertigo; Vestibular Diseases; Head Movements; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 36404562
DOI: 10.3233/VES-220202 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment. 1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy We identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty). 2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy We identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty). 3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy We identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty). 4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy We identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions. For primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain. For secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone. Although adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dizziness; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Pain; Tympanic Membrane Perforation; Vertigo
PubMed: 35867413
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008080.pub2 -
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal Jan 2021
Topics: COVID-19; Dizziness; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Vertigo
PubMed: 32931322
DOI: 10.1177/0145561320959573 -
The Journal of International Advanced... Dec 2019This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the repositioning maneuver on quality of life in elderly patients with dizziness and/or vertigo. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the repositioning maneuver on quality of life in elderly patients with dizziness and/or vertigo.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This controlled, prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in elderly patients aged 65 years and above with a positive history of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), presence of vertigo, and no observable nystagmus during the Dix-Hallpike test, so-called Subjective BPPV (S-BPPV). Individuals were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and dizziness handicap inventory (DHI). Groups were defined as treatment (treated with Epley maneuver bilaterally) or no treatment control (no treatment modality or canalith repositioning maneuver). Ten days after the first assessment, all patients were reassessed using VAS and DHI.
RESULTS
A total of 50 patients were randomized into two groups: 25 to the treatment group, and 25 to the control group. No significant differences were observed for baseline VAS and total DHI scores between the groups (p=0.636, p=0.846, respectively). On the other hand, after the reassessment, VAS and total DHI scores were both significantly reduced in the treatment group (p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively), but no reduction in either score was found in the control group (p=0.216, p=0.731, respectively).
CONCLUSION
This study showed that elderly patients with S-BPPV benefit from the Epley maneuver, in particular global and disease-specific quality of life.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; Dizziness; Female; Geriatric Assessment; Humans; Male; Patient Positioning; Physical Therapy Modalities; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Visual Analog Scale
PubMed: 31846923
DOI: 10.5152/iao.2019.6483 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo is a common vestibular disorder that accounts for one fifth of hospital admissions due to vertigo, although it is commonly... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo is a common vestibular disorder that accounts for one fifth of hospital admissions due to vertigo, although it is commonly undiagnosed.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of betahistine add-on therapy in the treatment of subjects with posterior benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
METHODS
This randomized controlled study was conducted in a population of 100 subjects with posterior benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Subjects were divided into the Epley maneuver + betahistine group (group A) and Epley maneuver only (group B) group. Subjects were evaluated before and 1-week after the maneuver using a visual analog scale and dizziness handicap inventory RESULTS: One hundred subjects completed the study protocol. The Epley maneuver had an overall success rate of 95% (96% in group A; 94% in group B, p = 0.024). Groups A and B had similar baseline visual analog scale scores (6.98 ± 2.133 and 6.27 ± 2.148, respectively, p = 0.100). After treatment, the visual analog scale score was significantly lower in both groups, and was significantly lower in group A than group B (0.74 ± 0.853 vs. 1.92 ± 1.288, respectively, p = 0.000). The change in visual analog scale score after treatment compared to baseline was also significantly greater in group A than group B (6.24 ± 2.01 vs. 4.34 ± 2.32, respectively, p = 0.000). The baseline dizziness handicap inventory values were also similar in groups A and B (55.60 ± 22.732 vs. 45.59 ± 17.049, respectively, p = 0.028). After treatment, they were significantly lower in both groups. The change in score after treatment compared to baseline was also significantly greater in group A than group B (52.44 ± 21.42 vs. 35.71 ± 13.51, respectively, p = 0.000).
CONCLUSION
The Epley maneuver is effective for treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Betahistine add-on treatment in posterior benign paroxysmal positional vertigo resulted in improvements in both visual analog scale score and dizziness handicap inventory.
Topics: Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; Betahistine; Dizziness; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32978116
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.07.011 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2015The combination of vertigo, dizziness and balance disturbance with migraine is called vestibular migraine. Although it is estimated that up to 1% of the population... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The combination of vertigo, dizziness and balance disturbance with migraine is called vestibular migraine. Although it is estimated that up to 1% of the population suffers from this disease, it is still widely unknown and often underdiagnosed. Recently, the International Headache Society and the Báràny Society published the first joint document with mutually accepted diagnostic criteria for vestibular migraine.
METHOD
This review summarizes current knowledge on vestibular migraine with regard to epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, differential diagnosis and therapeutic options.
RESULTS
Approximately 30-50% of patients with migraine report vertigo, dizziness or balance disturbances with at least one migraine attack. Vestibular migraine often appears in a temporal delay to the first onset of migraine headache. In some patients the symptom of sudden onset disequilibrium was the main complaint and more worrisome than the accompanying migraine headache. The duration of attacks varies from a few seconds up to few days. The underlying pathophysiology of vestibular migraine is still widely unknown. As an important differential diagnosis, Ménière's disease has to be considered and excluded.
CONCLUSION
As randomized controlled treatment trials are still missing in vestibular migraine, the therapeutic recommendations for vestibular migraine are currently based on the guidelines of migraine.
Topics: Dizziness; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Vertigo; Vestibular Diseases
PubMed: 24847169
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414535113