Objective: To determine the one-year outcome for patients with a chief complaint of dizziness that had persisted at least two weeks.
Design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Federal teaching hospital.
Patients: 100 dizzy patients and 25 control subjects.
Measurements: The primary outcome was dizziness status (improved or not improved); the secondary outcomes were morbidity and health care
utilization.
Results: The dizziness resolved for 18 patients, whereas the status improved for 37, stayed the same for 32, and worsened for 11,
with two patients lost to follow-up. Thus, 55% of patients whose dizziness had not resolved two weeks after their initial
visits improved over the subsequent 12 months. Logistic regression revealed four independent predictors of persistent dizziness
at one-year follow-up: dizziness due to psychiatric causes, dysequilibrium, vertigo other than benign positional vertigo,
vestibular neuronitis, or migraine (odds ratio, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.1–18.6); daily dizziness (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.0–21.0);
dizziness worse with walking (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1–9.0); and patient had initially feared a serious illness (odds
ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10–0.74). These four factors could be used to classify patients as having either a high (82%), medium
(47%), or low (0%) likelihood of improvement at one-year follow-up. One patient died from heart failure, and none developed
a serious disease for which dizziness had been a harbinger. Dizziness was not associated with an increased number of clinic
visits.
Conclusions: Among patients with a chief complaint of dizziness who are still symptomatic at two-week follow-up, more than half improve
within a year. Clinical factors identify patients at higher risk for persistent dizziness.
Key words dizziness - prognosis - outcomes - morbidity - health care utilization - vertigo
Supported in part by grant G183DP-01 from the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.
The opinions or assertions contained in this article are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as reflecting
the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.