Prognosis and Survival of Older Patients With Dizziness in Primary Care: A 10-Year Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The prognosis of older patients with dizziness in primary care is unknown. Our objective was to determine the prognosis and survival of patients with different subtypes and causes of dizziness. METHODS: In a primary care prospective cohort study, 417 older adults with dizziness (mean age 79 years) received a full diagnostic workup in 2006-2008. A panel of physicians classified the subtype and primary cause of dizziness. Main outcome measures were mortality and dizziness-related impairment assessed at 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 10-year follow-up 169 patients (40.5%) had died. Presyncope was the most common dizziness subtype (69.1%), followed by vertigo (41.0%), disequilibrium (39.8%), and other dizziness (1.7%). The most common primary causes of dizziness were cardiovascular disease (56.8%) and peripheral vestibular disease (14.4%). Multivariable adjusted Cox models showed a lower mortality rate for patients with the subtype vertigo compared with other subtypes (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), and for peripheral vestibular disease vs cardiovascular disease as primary cause of dizziness (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.84). After 10 years, 47.7% of patients who filled out the follow-up measurement experienced substantial dizziness-related impairment. No significant difference in substantial impairment was seen between different subtypes and primary causes of dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-year mortality rate was lower for the dizziness subtype vertigo compared with other subtypes. Patients with dizziness primarily caused by peripheral vestibular disease had a lower mortality rate than patients with cardiovascular disease. Substantial dizziness-related impairment in older patients with dizziness 10 years later is high, and indicates that current treatment strategies by family physicians may be suboptimal.

Functional prognosis of dizziness in older adults in primary care: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the 6-month functional prognosis of dizziness in older adults in primary care, to identify important predictors of dizziness-related impairment, and to construct a score to assist risk prediction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Twenty-four primary care practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred seventeen older adults (mean age 78.5, range 65-95, 74% female) presenting consecutively to primary care with dizziness. MEASUREMENTS: Tests, including history and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review, were performed. The main outcome measure was 6-month dizziness-related impairment score measured using the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 92% of participants. Although 61% of participants experienced less impairment at 6 months, 130 participants (34%) showed persistent dizziness-related impairment. Factors most predictive of dizziness-related impairment at 6 months were onset of dizziness at least 6 months before inclusion, standing still as a dizziness-provoking circumstance, trouble with walking or (almost) falling (associated symptom), polypharmacy, absence of diabetes mellitus, presence of anxiety or depressive disorder, and impaired functional mobility. A score was constructed using these predictors to estimate the functional prognosis of dizziness at 6 months. CONCLUSION: A score based on the presence of easily obtainable clinical information facilitates identification of older adults in primary care with poor functional prognosis of their dizziness without exactly knowing the cause(s) of their dizziness. Clinical management might be most effective by treating factors that can be influenced, such as polypharmacy, anxiety and depression, and functional mobility.

Impact of dizziness on everyday life in older primary care patients: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness is a common and often disabling symptom, but diagnosis often remains unclear; especially in older persons where dizziness tends to be multicausal. Research on dizziness-related impairment might provide options for a functional oriented approach, with less focus on finding diagnoses. We therefore studied dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients and aimed to identify indicators related to this impairment. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study we included 417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 general practitioners in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008. We performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. Our primary outcome was impact of dizziness on everyday life measured with the Dutch validated version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). After a bootstrap procedure (1500x) we investigated predictability of DHI-scores with stepwise backward multiple linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: DHI-scores varied from 0 to 88 (maximum score: 100) and 60% of patients experienced moderate or severe impact on everyday life due to dizziness. Indicators for dizziness-related impairment were: onset of dizziness 6 months ago or more (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7), frequency of dizziness at least daily (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.0-5.4), duration of dizziness episode one minute or less (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.9), presence of anxiety and/or depressive disorder (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.2-8.8), use of sedative drugs (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-3.8) , and impaired functional mobility (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7-4.2). For this model with only 6 indicators the AUC was .80 (95% CI .76-.84). CONCLUSIONS: Dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients is considerable (60%). With six simple indicators it is possible to identify which patients suffer the most from their dizziness without exactly knowing the cause(s) of their dizziness. Influencing these indicators, if possible, may lead to functional improvement and this might be effective in patients with moderate or severe impact of dizziness on their daily lives.

Diagnostic indicators of anxiety and depression in older dizzy patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Dizzy patients with both psychological and physical symptoms tend to have high levels of disability and are at risk of remaining symptomatic and disabled. The objective of this study was to develop a prediction model for the presence of anxiety and/or depression in older dizzy patients in primary care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study among 415 older patients consulting their primary care physician for persistent dizziness. Participants underwent a standardized, comprehensive evaluation and completed self-administered questionnaires regarding anxiety and depression (PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ]) and dizziness-related disability (Dizziness Handicap Inventory). To determine the diagnostic indicators of anxiety and/or depression, we used multiple logistic regression analysis with ''presence of Panic Disorder, Other Anxiety Disorder, or Major Depressive Disorder'' as dependent variable. Potential diagnostic indicators included dizziness-related disability, patient characteristics (age, sex, history of anxiety, and history of depression), and dizziness characteristics (description of dizziness, provoking circumstances, associated symptoms, onset, frequency, duration, and avoidance of activities because of dizziness). RESULTS: According to the PHQ, an anxiety and/or depressive disorder was present in 90 patients (22%), of whom 35 reported no medical history of anxiety or depression, nor current pharmacological treatment for these disorders. In the final model, dizziness-related disability, a history of depression, and accompanying fear were associated with an increased odd of anxiety and/or depression, whereas tinnitus and rotational dizziness were associated with a decreased odd of anxiety and/or depression. The model showed good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P value of .46) and discrimination (adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] after bootstrapping of .82). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians should consider the existence of anxiety and depression in older patients presenting with dizziness. After external validation, our model may contribute to better recognition and hence better management of anxiety and depression in older patients with dizziness in primary care.

Profiling dizziness in older primary care patients: an empirical study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic approach to dizzy, older patients is not straightforward as many organ systems can be involved and evidence for diagnostic strategies is lacking. A first differentiation in diagnostic subtypes or profiles may guide the diagnostic process of dizziness and can serve as a classification system in future research. In the literature this has been done, but based on pathophysiological reasoning only. OBJECTIVE: To establish a classification of diagnostic profiles of dizziness based on empirical data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 primary care physicians in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008. METHODS: We performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. We used the results of these tests in a principal component analysis for exploration, data-reduction and finally differentiation into diagnostic dizziness profiles. RESULTS: Demographic data and the results of the tests yielded 221 variables, of which 49 contributed to the classification of dizziness into six diagnostic profiles, that may be named as follows: "frailty", "psychological", "cardiovascular", "presyncope", "non-specific dizziness" and "ENT". These explained 32% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: Empirically identified components classify dizziness into six profiles. This classification takes into account the heterogeneity and multicausality of dizziness and may serve as starting point for research on diagnostic strategies and can be a first step in an evidence based diagnostic approach of dizzy older patients.

Causes of persistent dizziness in elderly patients in primary care.

PURPOSE: Although dizzy patients are predominantly seen in primary care, most diagnostic studies on dizziness have been performed among patients in secondary or tertiary care. Our objective was to describe subtypes of dizziness in elderly patients in primary care and to assess contributory causes of dizziness. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study among elderly patients in the Netherlands consulting their family physician for persistent dizziness. All patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation according to a set of diagnostic tests that were developed during an international Delphi procedure. Data for each patient were independently reviewed by a panel consisting of a family physician, a geriatrician, and a nursing home physician, which resulted in major and minor contributory causes of dizziness. RESULTS: From June 2006 to January 2008, we included 417 patients aged 65 to 95 years. Presyncope was the most common dizziness subtype (69%). Forty-four percent of the patients were assigned more than 1 dizziness subtype. Cardiovascular disease was considered to be the most common major contributory cause of dizziness (57%), followed by peripheral vestibular disease (14%), and psychiatric illness (10%). An adverse drug effect was considered to be the most common minor contributory cause of dizziness (23%). Sixty-two percent of the patients were assigned more than 1 contributory cause of dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to most previous studies, cardiovascular disease was found to be the most common major cause of dizziness in elderly patients in primary care. In one-quarter of all patients an adverse drug effect was considered to be a contributory cause of dizziness, which is much higher than reported in previous studies.

Dizziness reported by elderly patients in family practice: prevalence, incidence, and clinical characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Although dizziness in elderly patients is very common in family practice, most prevalence studies on dizziness are community-based and include a study population that is not representative of family practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and incidence of dizziness reported by elderly patients in family practice, to describe their final diagnoses as recorded by the family physician, and to compare the clinical characteristics of dizzy patients with those of non-dizzy patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, a prospective registration study which took place over a 12-month period in 2001. We developed a search strategy consisting of 15 truncated search terms (based on Dutch synonyms for dizziness), and identified all patients aged 65 or older who visited their family physician because of dizziness (N = 3,990). We used the mid-time population as denominator to calculate the prevalence and incidence, and for group comparisons we used the Student's t and Chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The one-year prevalence of dizziness in family practice in patients aged 65 or older was 8.3%, it was higher in women than in men, and it increased with age. In patients aged 85 or older the prevalence was similar for men and women. The incidence of dizziness was 47.1 per 1000 person-years. For 39% of the dizzy patients the family physicians did not specify a diagnosis, and recorded a symptom diagnosis as the final diagnosis. Living alone, lower level of education, pre-existing cerebrovascular disease, and pre-existing hypertension were independently associated with dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Dizziness in family practice patients increases with age. It is more common in women than in men, but this gender difference disappears in the very old. Because a large proportion of dizzy elderly patients in family practice remains undiagnosed, it would be worthwhile to carry out more diagnostic research on dizziness in a family practice setting.

Accuracy of monofilament testing to diagnose peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: We wanted to summarize evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07/10-g monofilament test in peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies in which the accuracy of the 5.07/10-g monofilament was evaluated to detect peripheral neuropathy of any cause using nerve conduction as reference standard. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. RESULTS: We reviewed 173 titles and abstracts of articles to identify 54 potentially eligible studies, of which 3 were finally selected for data synthesis. All studies were limited to patients with diabetes mellitus and showed limitations according to the QUADAS tool. Sensitivity ranged from 41% to 93% and specificity ranged from 68% to 100%. Because of the heterogenous nature of the studies, a meta-analysis could not be accomplished. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the frequent use of monofilament testing, little can be said about the test accuracy for detecting neuropathy in feet without visible ulcers. Optimal test application and defining a threshold should have priority in evaluating monofilament testing, as this test is advocated in many clinical guidelines. Accordingly, we do not recommend the sole use of monofilament testing to diagnose peripheral neuropathy.

Development of a diagnostic protocol for dizziness in elderly patients in general practice: a Delphi procedure.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness in general practice is very common, especially in elderly patients. The empirical evidence for diagnostic tests in the evaluation of dizziness is scarce. Aim of our study was to determine which set of diagnostic tests should be part of a diagnostic protocol for evaluating dizziness in elderly patients in general practice. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi procedure with a panel of 16 national and international experts of all relevant medical specialities in the field of dizziness. A selection of 36 diagnostic tests, based on a systematic review and practice guidelines, was presented to the panel. Each test was described extensively, and data on test characteristics and methodological quality (assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, QUADAS) were presented. The threshold for in- or exclusion of a diagnostic test was set at an agreement of 70%. RESULTS: During three rounds 21 diagnostic tests were selected, concerning patient history (4 items), physical examination (11 items), and additional tests (6 items). Five tests were excluded, although they are recommended by existing practice guidelines on dizziness. Two tests were included, although several practice guidelines question their diagnostic value. Two more tests were included that have never been recommended by practice guidelines on dizziness. CONCLUSION: In this study we successfully combined empirical evidence with expert opinion for the development of a set of diagnostic tests for evaluating dizziness in elderly patients. This comprehensive set of tests will be evaluated in a cross-sectional diagnostic study.