Subjective visual vertical imprecision during lateral head tilt in patients with chronic dizziness.

Most prior studies of the subjective visual vertical (SVV) focus on inaccuracy of subjects' SVV responses with the head in an upright position. Here we investigated SVV imprecision during lateral head tilt in patients with chronic dizziness compared to healthy controls. Forty-five dizzy patients and 45 healthy controls underwent SVV testing wearing virtual reality (VR) goggles, sitting upright (0°) and during head tilt in the roll plane (± 30°). Ten trials were completed in each of three static head positions. The SVV inaccuracy and SVV imprecision were analyzed and compared between groups, along with systematic errors during head tilt, i.e., A-effect and E-effect (E-effect is a typical SVV response during head tilts of ± 30°). The SVV imprecision was found to be affected by head position (upright/right head tilt/left head tilt, p < 0.001) and underlying dizziness (dizzy patients/healthy controls, p = 0.005). The SVV imprecision during left head tilt was greater in dizzy patients compared to healthy controls (p = 0.04). With right head tilt, there was a trend towards greater SVV imprecision in dizzy patients (p = 0.08). Dizzy patients were more likely to have bilateral (6.7%) or unilateral (22.2%) A-effect during lateral head tilt than healthy controls (bilateral (0%) or unilateral (6.7%) A-effect, p < 0.01). Greater SVV imprecision in chronically dizzy patients during head tilts may be attributable to increased noise of vestibular sensory afferents or disturbances of multisensory integration. Our findings suggest that SVV imprecision may be a useful clinical parameter of underlying dizziness measurable with bedside SVV testing in VR.

Test-retest reliability of subjective visual vertical measurements with lateral head tilt in virtual reality goggles.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to investigate the test-retest reliability of subjective visual vertical (SVV) in the upright position and with lateral head tilts through a computerized SVV measuring system using virtual reality (VR) goggles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty healthy controls underwent SVV test in upright position, with the head tilted to the right 30°, and with the head tilted to the left 30°. Subjects wore SVV VR goggles, which contained a gyroscope for monitoring the angle of head tilt. Each subject completed 10 adjustments in each head position. The mean value of SVV deviations and SVV imprecision (the intra-individual variability of SVV deviations from the 10 adjustments) were recorded and compared across different head positions. The participants then repeated the same SVV protocol at least 1 week later. The test-retest reliability of SVV deviation and SVV imprecision were analyzed. RESULTS: The SVV deviation (mean ± standard deviation) was 0.22° ± 1.56° in upright position, -9.64° ± 5.91° in right head tilt, and 7.20° ± 6.36° in left head tilt. The test-retest reliability of SVV deviation was excellent in upright position (intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.77, P < 0.001), right head tilt (ICC = 0.83, P < 0.001) and left head tilt (ICC = 0.84, P < 0.001). The SVV values from the 10 adjustments made during right and left head tilts were less precise than when measured at upright (P < 0.001). The test-retest reliability of SVV imprecision was poor at upright (ICC = 0.21, P = 0.26) but fair-to-good in right head tilt (ICC = 0.72, P < 0.001) and left head tilt (ICC = 0.44, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The test-retest reliability of SVV deviation during lateral head tilts via VR goggles is excellent, which supports further research into the diagnostic value of head-tilt SVV in various vestibular disorders. In addition, the degree of SVV imprecision during head tilt has fair-to-good test-retest reliability, which suggests SVV imprecision may have clinical applicability.

Stroke hospitalization after misdiagnosis of "benign dizziness" is lower in specialty care than general practice: a population-based cohort analysis of missed stroke using SPADE methods.

OBJECTIVES: Isolated dizziness is a challenging stroke presentation in the emergency department, but little is known about this problem in other clinical settings. We sought to compare stroke hospitalizations after treat-and-release clinic visits for purportedly "benign dizziness" between general and specialty care settings. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study from a national database. We included clinic patients with a first incident treat-and-release visit diagnosis of non-specific dizziness/vertigo or a peripheral vestibular disorder (ICD-9-CM 780.4 or 386.x [not 386.2]). We compared general care (internal medicine, family medicine) vs. specialty care (neurology, otolaryngology) providers. We used propensity scores to control for baseline stroke risk differences unrelated to dizziness diagnosis. We measured excess (observed>expected) stroke hospitalizations in the first 30 d (i.e., missed strokes associated with an adverse event). RESULTS: We analyzed 144,355 patients discharged with "benign dizziness" (n=117,117 diagnosed in general care; n=27,238 in specialty care). After propensity score matching, patients in both groups were at higher risk of stroke in the first 30 d (rate difference per 10,000 treat-and-release visits for "benign dizziness" 24.9 [95% CI 18.6-31.2] in general care and 10.6 [95% CI 6.3-14.9] in specialty care). Short-term stroke risk was higher in general care than specialty care (relative risk, RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.2) while the long-term risk was not significantly different (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.9), indicating higher misdiagnosis-related harms among dizzy patients who initially presented to generalists after adequate propensity matching. CONCLUSIONS: Missed stroke-related harms in general care were roughly twice that in specialty care. Solutions are needed to address this care gap.