Pınar Özçelik1, Koray Koçoğlu1, Vesile Öztürk2, Pembe Keskinoğlu3, Gülden Akdal4,5. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Institute of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey. 2. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İnciraltı/Balçova, İzmir, Turkey. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey. 4. Department of Neuroscience, Institute of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey. gulden.akdal@deu.edu.tr. 5. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İnciraltı/Balçova, İzmir, Turkey. gulden.akdal@deu.edu.tr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the most common causes of vertigo in clinical practice but it is not always easy to make the correct diagnosis. Our aims were to find out how VM patients differ from migraine only (MO) patients, to evaluate co-morbid depression in these two groups and to determine if their disease has an effect on their quality of life. METHODS: We studied 50 definite VM and 35 MO patients. Each patient was asked about: age of onset, duration of headaches, presence of aura, headache characteristics, triggering factors, associated features, motion sickness history and family history of migraine. VM patients were also asked about their vertigo attacks and accompanying symptoms. Each patient also completed the following questionnaires: (1) Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS); (2) headache severity with VAS (Visual Analog Scale); (3) Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12); (4) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); (5) World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire Short Form-12 (WHOQL-SF12); (6) Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). VM patients also completed the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). RESULTS: We found that VM patients were more likely than MO patients to be female, post-menopausal, depressed, motion sick, complaining of imbalance and of food-triggered headaches. In contrast, MO patients were more likely than VM patients to have severe headaches and that these can be triggered by certain odors and by noise. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed differences between VM and MO patients and attention to these differences could help clinicians diagnose, characterize and manage their VM patients.
BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the most common causes of vertigo in clinical practice but it is not always easy to make the correct diagnosis. Our aims were to find out how VM patients differ from migraine only (MO) patients, to evaluate co-morbid depression in these two groups and to determine if their disease has an effect on their quality of life. METHODS: We studied 50 definite VM and 35 MO patients. Each patient was asked about: age of onset, duration of headaches, presence of aura, headache characteristics, triggering factors, associated features, motion sickness history and family history of migraine. VM patients were also asked about their vertigo attacks and accompanying symptoms. Each patient also completed the following questionnaires: (1) Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS); (2) headache severity with VAS (Visual Analog Scale); (3) Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12); (4) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); (5) World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire Short Form-12 (WHOQL-SF12); (6) Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). VM patients also completed the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). RESULTS: We found that VM patients were more likely than MO patients to be female, post-menopausal, depressed, motion sick, complaining of imbalance and of food-triggered headaches. In contrast, MO patients were more likely than VM patients to have severe headaches and that these can be triggered by certain odors and by noise. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed differences between VM and MO patients and attention to these differences could help clinicians diagnose, characterize and manage their VM patients.
Authors: Hale Karapolat; Sibel Eyigor; Yesim Kirazli; Nese Celebisoy; Cem Bilgen; Tayfun Kirazli Journal: Int J Rehabil Res Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 1.479