A diagnostic framework to identify vestibular involvement in multi-sensory neurological disease

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Identifying vestibular causes of dizziness and unsteadiness in multi-sensory neurological disease can be challenging, with problems typically attributed to central or peripheral nerve involvement. Acknowledging vestibular dysfunction as part of the presentation provides an opportunity to access targeted vestibular rehabilitation, for which extensive evidence exists. A diagnostic framework was developed and validated to detect vestibular dysfunction, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo or vestibular migraine. The specificity and sensitivity of the diagnostic framework was tested in patients with primary mitochondrial disease.

METHODS

Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of primary mitochondrial disease were consented, between September 2020 and February 2022. Participants with and without dizziness or unsteadiness underwent remote physiotherapy assessment and had in-person detailed neuro-otological assessment. The six framework question responses were compared against objective neuro-otological assessment or medical notes. The output was binary, with sensitivity and specificity calculated.

RESULTS

Seventy-four adults completed the study: age range 20-81 years (mean 48 years, ±SD 15.05 years); ratio 2:1 female to male. The framework identified a vestibular diagnosis in 35 participants, with seven having two diagnoses. The framework was able to identify vestibular diagnoses in adults with primary mitochondrial disease, with a moderate (40-59) to very high (90-100) sensitivity and positive predictive value, and moderate to high (60-74) to very high (90-100) specificity and negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the clinical framework identified common vestibular diagnoses with a moderate to very high specificity and sensitivity. This presents an opportunity for patients to access effective treatment in a timely manner, to reduce falls and improve quality of life.

Acute positional vertigo in the emergency department-peripheral vs. central positional nystagmus

Introduction

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of positional vertigo. However, positional vertigo can also be due to diseases affecting the central vestibular pathways, such as vestibular migraine. Accurate and timely diagnosis enables effective triage and management.

Objectives

To evaluate diagnoses made by emergency clinicians compared to acute vertigo specialists, in patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) with positional vertigo.

Methods

Following routine ED care, patients with a primary complaint of dizziness, vertigo, light-headedness or unsteadiness, underwent detailed neuro-otological assessment by acute vertigo specialists. Demographics and final diagnoses were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Of 71 consented patients (21-91 years; mean 56 years, ±16.7 years, 40 females), ED identified 13 with a peripheral cause of positional vertigo (mean 48.85 years, ±16.19, 8 females). Central positional nystagmus was not noted in any of the patients with positional vertigo seen by the ED clinicians. Acute vertigo specialists diagnosed nine patients with BPPV (age range 50-88 years, mean 66 years, ±12.22, 5 females), and six with central positional nystagmus (age range 23-59 years, mean 41.67 years, ±15.78, 6 females).

Conclusion

Positional vertigo should be assessed with positional maneuvers such as Dix-Hallpike and Roll tests in the ED to identify peripheral and central nystagmus features. Central causes are more common in younger females, with the presence of vomiting, and/or a background of motion sensitivity.

A survey of current management of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) by physiotherapists' interested in vestibular rehabilitation in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of dizziness. Extensive research has identified the best assessment and treatment manoeuvres for each subtype of BPPV. Education in vestibular rehabilitation (VR) is inconsistent. It is unclear if the evidence has been adopted by UK physiotherapists in clinical practice and no research has investigated this specifically.

DESIGN

An online survey with closed- and open-text answers.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of physiotherapists interested in VR. A response rate of 67% (100/150) was obtained, from which 20 responses were excluded.

RESULTS

Participants had good evidence-based awareness in assessment (79/80, 99%) and treatment (72/80, 90%) of posterior BPPV. Horizontal BPPV assessment awareness was lower than treatment (37/80, 46% vs 60/80, 75%). Differential diagnosis was poor in subjective (20/80, 25%) and objective stages of assessment (34/80, 43%). Thirty six percent (29/80) were able to list ≥3 test precautions with all three nystagmus characteristics described by 29% (23/80). Eighty one percent (65/80) encourage activity restrictions post-treatment. Only 28% (22/80) were aware of practice guidelines or Cochrane reviews in BPPV. External courses were rated the top method for learning how to manage BPPV. Lack of peer support (26/77, 34%) was the main challenge faced whilst learning. Recommendations for improving BPPV education included more external courses (23/87, 26%) and competency guidelines (13/87, 15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Good awareness of research evidence was observed in some aspects of BPPV management but many areas require development. Translation and implementation of evidence remains poor and suggests changes in education and knowledge dissemination are warranted.