Vertebral artery dissection: an important differential diagnosis of vertigo

Univ Fed Sao Paulo UNIFESP, Dept Otorrinolaringol & Cirurg Cabeca & Pescoco, Sao Paulo, SP, BrazilUniv Fed Sao Paulo UNIFESP, Dept Otorrinolaringol & Cirurg Cabeca & Pescoco, Sao Paulo, SP, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Prophylactic treatment of vestibular migraine

Introduction: Vestibular migraine (VM) is now accepted as a common cause of episodic vertigo. Treatment of VM involves two situations: the vestibular symptom attacks and the period between attacks. For the latter, some prophylaxis methods can be used. The current recommendation is to use the same prophylactic drugs used for migraines, including beta-blockers, antidepressants and anticonvulsants. The recent diagnostic definition of vestibular migraine makes the number of studies on its treatment scarce. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic treatment used in patients from a VM outpatient clinic. Methods: Review of medical records from patients with VM according to the criteria of the Barany Society/International Headache Society of 2012 criteria. The drugs used in the treatment and treatment response obtained through the visual analog scale (VAS) for dizziness and headache were assessed. The pre and post-treatment VAS scores were compared (the improvement was evaluated together and individually, per drug used). Associations with clinical subgroups of patients were also assessed. Results: Of the 88 assessed records, 47 were eligible. We included patients that met the diagnostic criteria for VM and excluded those whose medical records were illegible and those of patients with other disorders causing dizziness and/or headache that did not meet the 2012 criteria for VM. 80.9% of the patients showed improvement with prophylaxis (p < 0.001). Amitriptyline, Flunarizine, Propranolol and Topiramate improved vestibular symptoms (p < 0.001) and headache (p < 0.015). The four drugs were effective in a statistically significant manner. There was a positive statistical association between the time of vestibular symptoms and clinical improvement. There was no additional benefit in hypertensive patients who used antihypertensive drugs as prophylaxis or depressed patients who used antidepressants in relation to other prophylactic drugs. Drug association did not show statistically significant results in relation to the use of a single drug. Conclusions: Prophylactic medications used to treat VM improve the symptoms of this disease, but there is no statistically significant difference between the responses of prophylactic drugs. The time of vestibular symptom seems to increase the benefit with prophylactic treatment. (C) 2016 Associacao Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervico-Facial. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.Univ Fed Sao Paulo UNIFESP, Dept Otorrinolaringol & Cirurgia Cabeca & Pescoco, Sao Paulo, SP, BrazilUniv Fed Sao Paulo UNIFESP, Dept Otorrinolaringol & Cirurgia Cabeca & Pescoco, Sao Paulo, SP, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Vestibular migraine: comparative analysis between diagnostic criteria

AbstractIntroductionThere is a strong association between vertigo and migraine. Vestibular migraine (VM) was described in 1999, and diagnostic criteria were proposed in 2001 and revised in 2012.ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic criteria for VM proposed in 2001 with 2012 criteria with respect to their diagnostic power and therapeutic effect of VM prophylaxis.MethodsClinical chart review of patients attended to in a VM clinic.ResultsThe 2012 criteria made the diagnosis more specific, restricting the diagnosis of VM to a smaller number of patients, such that 87.7% of patients met 2001 criteria and 77.8% met 2012 criteria. Prophylaxis for VM was effective both for patients diagnosed by either set of criteria and for those who did not meet any of the criteria.ConclusionsThe 2012 diagnostic criteria for VM limited the diagnosis of the disease to a smaller number of patients, mainly because of the type, intensity, and duration of dizziness. Patients diagnosed with migraine and associated dizziness demonstrated improvement after prophylactic treatment of VM, even when they did not meet diagnostic criteria

Prophylactic treatment of vestibular migraine

Abstract Introduction: Vestibular migraine (VM) is now accepted as a common cause of episodic vertigo. Treatment of VM involves two situations: the vestibular symptom attacks and the period between attacks. For the latter, some prophylaxis methods can be used. The current recommendation is to use the same prophylactic drugs used for migraines, including β-blockers, antidepressants and anticonvulsants. The recent diagnostic definition of vestibular migraine makes the number of studies on its treatment scarce. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic treatment used in patients from a VM outpatient clinic. Methods: Review of medical records from patients with VM according to the criteria of the Bárány Society/International Headache Society of 2012 criteria. The drugs used in the treatment and treatment response obtained through the visual analog scale (VAS) for dizziness and headache were assessed. The pre and post-treatment VAS scores were compared (the improvement was evaluated together and individually, per drug used). Associations with clinical subgroups of patients were also assessed. Results: Of the 88 assessed records, 47 were eligible. We included patients that met the diagnostic criteria for VM and excluded those whose medical records were illegible and those of patients with other disorders causing dizziness and/or headache that did not meet the 2012 criteria for VM. 80.9% of the patients showed improvement with prophylaxis (p < 0.001). Amitriptyline, Flunarizine, Propranolol and Topiramate improved vestibular symptoms (p < 0.001) and headache (p < 0.015). The four drugs were effective in a statistically significant manner. There was a positive statistical association between the time of vestibular symptoms and clinical improvement. There was no additional benefit in hypertensive patients who used antihypertensive drugs as prophylaxis or depressed patients who used antidepressants in relation to other prophylactic drugs. Drug association did not show statistically significant results in relation to the use of a single drug. Conclusions: Prophylactic medications used to treat VM improve the symptoms of this disease, but there is no statistically significant difference between the responses of prophylactic drugs. The time of vestibular symptom seems to increase the benefit with prophylactic treatment

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events