Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2015
Vestibular migraine in an otolaryngology clinic: prevalence, associated symptoms, and prophylactic medication effectiveness.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Van Ombergen Angelique, Van Rompaey Vincent, Van de Heyning Paul, Wuyts Floris
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of vestibular migraine (VM) in patients consulting to an otolaryngology clinic, the neuro-otological associated symptoms, and the effect of prophylactic antimigrainous medication on VM symptom improvement.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
SETTING: Tertiary referral otolaryngology clinic.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We used the diagnostic criteria from the Bárány Society and the International Headache Society to allocate patients to a subgroup: VM, possible VM, and atypical VM.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The prevalence of VM, percentages of associated neurotological symptoms, and percentages of effectiveness of prophylactic medication.
RESULTS: Sixty-five (16%) patients were selected from the total patient population (n = 407) from which 4.2% were assigned to the definite VM group, 5.7% to the probable VM group, and 6.1% to the atypical VM group. We found a significantly different distribution between the groups for photophobia (p = 0.035), ear pressure (p = 0.023), and scotoma (p = 0.015). Thirty patients were administered with flunarizine and 68% responded with an improvement in VM symptoms (p < 0.001). For propranolol, 31 patients were treated and there was an improvement of symptoms in 73% (p < 0.001). Remarkable was the fact that these percentages were not significantly different between the subgroups.
CONCLUSION: VM is a common disorder presenting in a dizziness clinic, and detailed history taking is important to assess VM-associated symptoms and thus to prevent underdiagnosis. The latter is very important because our study shows that the majority of patients, regardless of VM subtype, can benefit from a prophylactic treatment, but further prospective studies are necessary.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
SETTING: Tertiary referral otolaryngology clinic.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We used the diagnostic criteria from the Bárány Society and the International Headache Society to allocate patients to a subgroup: VM, possible VM, and atypical VM.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The prevalence of VM, percentages of associated neurotological symptoms, and percentages of effectiveness of prophylactic medication.
RESULTS: Sixty-five (16%) patients were selected from the total patient population (n = 407) from which 4.2% were assigned to the definite VM group, 5.7% to the probable VM group, and 6.1% to the atypical VM group. We found a significantly different distribution between the groups for photophobia (p = 0.035), ear pressure (p = 0.023), and scotoma (p = 0.015). Thirty patients were administered with flunarizine and 68% responded with an improvement in VM symptoms (p < 0.001). For propranolol, 31 patients were treated and there was an improvement of symptoms in 73% (p < 0.001). Remarkable was the fact that these percentages were not significantly different between the subgroups.
CONCLUSION: VM is a common disorder presenting in a dizziness clinic, and detailed history taking is important to assess VM-associated symptoms and thus to prevent underdiagnosis. The latter is very important because our study shows that the majority of patients, regardless of VM subtype, can benefit from a prophylactic treatment, but further prospective studies are necessary.