Otto R. Maarsingh

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

BackgroundAlthough 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.MethodsData 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 Students t and Chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsDizziness 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.

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

BackgroundDizziness 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsDHI-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).ConclusionsDizziness-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.

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

BackgroundDizziness 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.MethodsWe 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%.ResultsDuring 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.ConclusionIn 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.

Tests used to evaluate dizziness in primary care

Dizziness is a nonspecific term that refers to various abnormal sensations of body orientation in space; patients often find these sensations difficult to describe. The prevalence of dizziness in the community ranges from 1.8% among young adults to over 30% among the elderly. Yearly consultation

Functional Prognosis of Dizziness in Older Adults in Primary Care: A Prospective Cohort Study

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.

Continuity of care in primary care and association with survival in older people: a 17-year prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Although continuity of care is a widely accepted core principle of primary care, the evidence about its benefits is still weak. AIM To investigate whether continuity of care in general practice is associated with better survival in older people. DESIGN AND SETTING Data were derived from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, an ongoing cohort study in older people in the Netherlands. The study sample consisted of 1712 older adults aged ≥60 years, with 3-year follow-up cycles up to 17 years (1992-2009), and mortality follow-up until 2013. METHOD Continuity of care was defined as the duration of the ongoing therapeutic relationship between patient and GP. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index was used to calculate the continuity of care (COC). A COC index value of 1 represented maximum continuity. COC index values <1 were divided into tertiles, with a fourth category for participants with maximum COC. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the association between COC and survival time. RESULTS Seven hundred and forty-two participants (43.3%) reported a maximum COC. Among the 759 participants surviving 17 years, 251 (33.1%) still had the same GP. The lowest COC category (index >0-0.500) showed significantly greater mortality than those in the maximum COC category (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.42). There were no confounders that affected this HR. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that low continuity of care in general practice is associated with a higher risk of mortality, strengthening the case for encouragement of continuity of 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.

Usual care and management of fall risk increasing drugs in older dizzy patients in Dutch general practice

Abstract Objective: For general practitioners (GPs) dizziness is a challenging condition to deal with. Data on the management of dizziness in older patients are mostly lacking. Furthermore, it is unknown whether GPs attempt to decrease Fall Risk Increasing Drugs (FRIDs) use in the management of dizziness in older patients. The aim of this study is to gain more insight into GP’s management of dizziness in older patients, including FRID evaluation and adjustment. Design: Data were derived from electronic medical records, obtained over a 12-month period in 2013. Setting: Forty-six Dutch general practices. Patients: The study sample comprised of 2812 older dizzy patients of 65 years and over. Patients were identified using International Classification of Primary Care codes and free text. Main outcome measures: Usual care was categorized into wait-and-see strategy (no treatment initiated); education and advice; additional testing; medication adjustment; and referral. Results: Frequently applied treatments included a wait-and-see strategy (28.4%) and education and advice (28.0%). Additional testing was performed in 26.8%; 19.0% of the patients were referred. Of the patients 87.2% had at least one FRID prescription. During the observation period, GPs adjusted the use of one or more FRIDs for 11.7% of the patients. Conclusion: This study revealed a wide variety in management strategies for dizziness in older adults. The referral rate for dizziness was high compared to prior research. Although many older dizzy patients use at least one FRID, FRID evaluation and adjustment is scarce. We expect that more FRID adjustments may reduce dizziness and dizziness-related impairment. Key Points It is important to know how general practitioners manage dizziness in older patients in order to assess potential cues for improvement. This study revealed a wide variety in management strategies for dizziness in older patients. There was a scarcity in Fall Risk Increasing Drug (FRID) evaluation and adjustment. The referral rate for dizziness was high compared with previous research.

Use of canalith repositioning manoeuvres and vestibular rehabilitation: a GP survey

Abstract Objective: To investigate the use of canalith repositioning manoeuvres and vestibular rehabilitation (VR) by GPs and to assess reasons for not using these techniques in patients with vertigo. Design: Online survey. Setting: GPs in the western and central part of the Netherlands. Subjects and method: Of GPs, 1169 were approached to participate in the survey. A sample of 426 GPs filled out the questionnaire (36.4% response rate). The 22-item questionnaire contained both multiple choice and free-text questions on the Epley manoeuvre, the Brandt-Daroff exercises and VR. Results of the survey were descriptively analyzed. Main outcome measures: The use of the Epley manoeuvre, the Brandt-Daroff exercises and VR by GPs; reasons that deter GPs from using these techniques. Results: The repositioning manoeuvres (Epley manoeuvre and Brandt-Daroff exercises) were used by approximately half of all GPs (57.3 and 50.2%), while only a small group of GPs applied VR (6.8%). The most important reason for GPs not to use the Epley manoeuvre, Brandt-Daroff exercises and VR was that they did not know how to perform the technique (49.5, 89.6 and 92.4%). Conclusions: Despite the proven effectiveness, repositioning manoeuvres and VR are remarkably underused by Dutch GPs. Not knowing how to perform the technique is the most important reason for GPs not to use these techniques. Efforts should be made to increase the knowledge and skills of GPs regarding canalith repositioning manoeuvres and VR. Key points   • Dizziness is a common symptom with limited therapeutic options.   • Canalith repositioning manoeuvres and vestibular rehabilitation represent the best treatment options currently available for vertigo.   • Canalith repositioning manoeuvres and vestibular rehabilitation are still widely underused by GPs.   • The most important reason for GPs not to use these techniques is that they do not know how to perform them.   • Efforts should be made to increase the knowledge and skills of GPs regarding canalith repositioning manoeuvres and vestibular rehabilitation.