Inpatient Treatment of Patients Admitted for Dizziness: A Population-Based Healthcare Research Study on Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome.

Otol Neurotol

*Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Jena University Hospital, Jena †Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Zentralklinikum, Suhl ‡Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Südharz-Krankenhaus gGmbH, Nordhausen §Department of Otorhinolaryngology, HELIOS-Klinikum, Erfurt ||Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sophien/Hufeland-Klinikum, Weimar ¶Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Klinikum Bad Salzungen, Bad Salzungen #Department of Otorhinolaryngology, SRH Wald-Klinikum, Gera **Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ilm-Kreis-Kliniken, Arnstadt ††Hans Berger Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

Published: December 2017

Objective: To determine inpatient treatment rates of patients with dizziness with focus on diagnostics, treatment and outcome.

Study Design: Retrospective population-based study.

Setting: Inpatients in the federal state Thuringia in 2014.

Patients: All 1,262 inpatients (62% females, median age: 61 yr) treated for inpatient dizziness were included.

Main Outcome Measures: The association between analyzed parameters and probability of improvement and recovery was tested using univariable and multivariable statistics.

Results: Final diagnosis at demission was peripheral vestibular disorder (PVD), central vestibular disorder (CVD), cardiovascular syndrome, somatoform syndrome, and unclassified disease in 75, 9, 3, 0.6, and 13%, respectively. The most frequent diseases were acute vestibular neuritis (28%) and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (22%). The follow-up time was 38 ± 98 days. 88.5% of patients showed at least an improvement of complaints and 31.4% a complete recovery. The probability for no improvement from inpatient dizziness was higher if the patient had a history of ear/vestibular disease (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.506; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.301-1.742), and was taking more than two drugs for comorbidity (HR = 1.163; CI = 1.032-1.310). Compared with final diagnosis of cardiovascular syndrome, patients with PVD (HR = 1.715; CI = 1.219-2.415) and CVD (HR = 1.587; CI = 1.076-2.341) had a worse outcome.

Conclusions: Inpatient treatment of dizziness was highly variable in daily practice. The population-based recovery rate was worse than reported in clinical trials. We need better ways to implement clinical trial findings for inpatients with dizziness.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001568DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

inpatient treatment
12
inpatient dizziness
8
probability improvement
8
final diagnosis
8
vestibular disorder
8
cardiovascular syndrome
8
dizziness
6
inpatient
5
patients
4
treatment patients
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!