Specificity of recovery in acute motor axonal neuropathy with conduction blocks on the example of two clinical cases

Introduction. The heterogeneity of the forms and severity of Guillain-Barre syndrome explains the variability of recovery: from rapid and complete (in most cases) to slow with the development of persistent residual deficiency (rarely). It is unclear how effective the Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modified version are for different forms of the disease.

The aim of the study – to demonstrate the features of recovery in acute motor axonal neuropathy with conduction blocks on the example of 2 clinical cases; to show the possibilities of Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modified version in predicting recovery in this form of the disease.

Materials and methods. Data from 2 patients with acute motor axonal neuropathy with motor conduction blocks were retrospectively analyzed. Calculation of the score and assessment of the prognosis of walking recovery by 6 months from the onset of the disease were performed using the online calculator International Guillain-Barre syndrome Outcome Study Prognosis tool in the acute period.

Results. In both patients, the forecast of recovery of walking by half a year from the onset of the disease on the Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and modified Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores scales in the acute period was erroneous. In the first case, the total score on the Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modification in the acute period was 5 and 10 points respectively (poor prognosis), which foreshadowed a long rehabilitation process and incomplete recovery. However, the regression of disorders was dramatic and complete, and by the second month of the disease, only minimal motor disorders remained. In the second patient, on the contrary, the total Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modification during the period of increasing symptoms was 3 and 7 points respectively (good prognosis), while recovery was delayed – only by 5 months from the onset of the disease, the ability to move with support was restored.

Conclusion. The Guillain–Barre syndrome is a disease with a favorable prognosis for recovery. However, the prediction of regression of motor disorders should be approached carefully, because in some cases, generally accepted criteria and prognostic scales may not work. Acute motor axonal neuropathy with conduction blocks is a unique form of the disease that has pathophysiological and clinical-neurophysiological features, which should be taken into account when managing this category of patients.

1. History of “radiculoneuritis syndrome” description. Nervnomyshechnye bolezni = Neuromuscular Diseases 2016;6(4):52–3. (In Russ.).

2. Créange A. Guillain-Barré syndrome: 100 years on. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2016;172(12):770–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurol.2016.10.011. PMID: 27866731.

3. Hughes R.A.C. Guillain–Barré syndrome: looking back... and forward. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;91(2):111–2. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2019-322361. PMID: 31924731.

4. Asbury A.K. New concepts of Guillain–Barré syndrome. Review. J Child Neurol 2000;15(3):183–91. DOI: 10.1177/088307380001500308. PMID: 10757475.

5. Leonhard S.E., Mandarakas M.R., Gondim F.A.A. et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol 2019;15(11): 671–83. DOI: 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9. PMID: 31541214.

6. Uncini A., Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol 2018;129(12):2586–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025. PMID: 30419502.

7. Van den Berg B., Walgaard C., Drenthen J. et al. Guillain–Barré syndrome: pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10(8):469–82. DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.121. PMID: 25023340.

8. Van der Meché F.G., Van Doorn P.A., Meulstee J. et al. Diagnostic and classification criteria for the Guillain–Barré syndrome. Eur Neurol 2001;45(3): 133–9. DOI: 10.1159/000052111. PMID: 11306855.

9. Piradov M.A., Suponeva N.A. Guillain–Barre Syndrome: diagnosis and treatment. Moscow: Medpress-inform, 2011. 208 p. (In Russ.).

10. Grishina D.A., Suponeva N.A., Piradov M.A. Guillain–Barre Syndrome: features of restoration of demyelinating and axonal forms. Annaly klinicheskoy I experimentalnoy nevrologii = Annals of clinical and experimental neurology 2012; 6(4):18–25. (In Russ.).

11. Suponeva N.A. Guillain–Barre syndrome: epidemiology, differential diagnosis, pathomorphosis, risk factors: dis. ... Doctor of medical sciences. Moscow, 2013. 305 (In Russ.).

12. Grishina D.A. Guillain–Barre syndrome: catamnestic clinical and neurophysiological research: Dis. ... kand. med. nauk. Moscow, 2013. 135 p. (In Russ.).

13. Bernsen R.A., Jager A.E., Schmitz P.I., van der Meché F.G. Long-term impact on work and private life after Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Neurol Sci 2002;201(1–2): 13–7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022510x(02)00158-2. PMID: 12163188.

14. Bersano A., Carpo M., Allaria S. et al. Long term disability and social status change after Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Neurol 2006;253(2):214–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-005-0958-x. PMID: 16096809.

15. Forsberg A., Press R., Einarsson U. et al. Disability and health-related quality of life in Guillain-Barré syndrome during the first two years after onset: a prospective study. Clin Rehabil 2005;19(8):900–9. DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr918oa. PMID: 16323390.

16. Koeppen S., Kraywinkel K., Wessendorf T.E. et al. Long-term outcome of Guillain–Barré syndrome. Neurocrit Care 2006;5(3):235–42. DOI: 10.1385/NCC:5:3:235. PMID: 17290096.

17. Rajabally Y.A., Uncini A. Outcome and its predictors in Guillain–Barre syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83(7):711–8. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2011-301882. PMID: 22566597.

18. Jacobs B.C., van den Berg B., Verboon C. et al. IGOS Consortium. International Guillain–Barré syndrome outcome study: protocol of a prospective observational cohort study on clinical and biological predictors of disease course and outcome in Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2017;22(2):68–76. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12209. PMID: 28406555.

19. Yamagishi Y., Kusunoki S. The prognosis and prognostic factor of Guillain–Barré Syndrome. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 2020;60(4):247–52. DOI: 10.5692/clinicalneurol.cn-001398. PMID: 32238748.

20. Tian J., Cao C., Li T. et al. Electrophysiological subtypes and prognostic factors of Guillain–Barre syndrome in Northern China. Front Neurol 2019;10:714. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00714. PMID: 31333568.

21. Van Doorn P.A. Diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). Presse Med 2013;42(6):193–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.lpm.2013.02.328. PMID: 23628447.

22. Hughes R.A., Hadden R.D., Rees J.H., Swan A.V. The Italian Guillain–Barré study group. The prognosis and main prognostic indicators of Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre prospective study of 297 patients. Brain 1998;121(4):767–9. DOI: 10.1093/brain/121.4.767. PMID: 9577400.

23. Kaida K. Prognostic factors in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 2013;53(11):1315–8. DOI: 10.5692/clinicalneurol.53.1315. PMID: 24291972.

24. Suponeva N.A., Piradov M.A., Nikitin S.S. et al. Pathogenetic and prognostic role of autoantibodies to peripheral nerve gangliosides in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Annaly klinicheskoy I experimentalnoy nevrologii = Annals of clinical and experimental neurology 2013;7(1):4–11. (In Russ.).

25. Bölükbaşi F., Ersen G., Gündüz A. et al. Guillain–Barré syndrome and its variants: clinical course and prognostic factors. Noro Psikiyatr Ars 2019;56(1):71–4. DOI: 10.5152/npa.2017.18091. PMID: 30911241.

26. van Koningsveld R., Steyerberg E.W., Hughes R.A. et al. A clinical prognostic scoring system for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet Neurol 2007;6(7):589–94. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70130-8. PMID: 17537676.

27. Walgaard C., Lingsma H.F., Ruts L. et al. Early recognition of poor prognosis in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Neurology 2011;76(11):968–75. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182104407. PMID: 21403108.

28. Tan C.Y., Razali S.N.O., Goh K.J., Shahrizaila N. The utility of Guillain-Barré syndrome prognostic models in Malaysian patients. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2019;24(2): 168–73. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12320. PMID: 31001904.

29. Forsberg A., Press R., Holmqvist L.W. Residual disability 10 years after falling ill in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a prospective follow-up study. J Neurol Sci 2012;317(1– 2):74–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2012.02.026. PMID: 22425539.

30. Chakraborty T., Kramer C.L., Wijdicks E.F.M., Rabinstein A.A. Dysautonomia in Guillain-Barré syndrome: prevalence, clinical spectrum, and outcomes. Neurocrit Care 2020;32(1):113–20. DOI: 10.1007/s12028-019-00781-w. PMID: 31297663.

31. Yamagishi Y., Suzuki H., Sonoo M. et al. Markers for Guillain–Barré syndrome with poor prognosis: a multi-center study. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2017;22(4):433–9. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12234. PMID: 28833828.

32. van Doorn P.A., Kuitwaard K., Walgaard C. et al. IVIG treatment and prognosis in Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Clin Immunol 2010;30:74–8. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-010-9407-4. PMID: 20396937.

33. Walgaard C., Jacobs B.C., Lingsma H.F. et al.; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients with poor prognosis (SID-GBS trial): protocol for a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2018;23(4):210–5. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12286. PMID: 30151941.

34. Verboon C., van den Berg B., Cornblath D.R. et al. IGOS Consortium. Original research: Second IVIg course in Guillain– Barré syndrome with poor prognosis: the non-randomised ISID study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;91(2):113–21. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2019-321496. PMID: 31586949.

35. Dourado J.M., Fernandes U.T., Ramos E.S. et al. Egos has a reduced capacity to predicts GBS prognosis in Northeast Brazil. Acta Neurol Scand 2018;138(5): 459–62. DOI: 10.1111/ane.12995. PMID: 30003535.