Electrophysiological criteria for the prognosis of the Guillain-Barré syndrome
https://doi.org/10.17650/2222-8721-2012-0-3-33-44
Abstract
The protocols for electromyography (EMG) examination from the acute period of the disease (within the first 2 weeks after its onset) were retrospectively analyzed and residual neurological symptoms were evaluated in 50 patients who had sustained the Guillain-Barré syndrome 3 months to 15 years before. The EMG results of n. n. medianus, ulnaris, peroneus, and tibialis examinations were compared with the factors of a poor acute period and recovery. The distal latencies of M-responses (dM-responses) and motor conduction velocities were found to be of no prognostic value. ROC analysis revealed the dM-response amplitude decrement thresholds that were significantly associated with the development of severe form of the disease, an increase in the periods of plateau > 2 weeks and recovery capability to walk with the support of more than for > 1 month, an insuffient effect to pathogenetic therapy, and preserved noticeable residual motor deficit in the late disease period requiring help from other people in some instances. EMG was shown to be an informative study that can predict the course of the acute period and outcome in patients with the Guillain-Barré syndrome.
About the Authors
D. A. Grishina
Research Center of Neurology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
N. A. Suponeva
Research Center of Neurology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. A. Piradov
Research Center of Neurology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. V. Sergeev
Research Center of Neurology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Bernsen R.A., Jager A.E., Schmitz P.I. et al. Long‑term sensory deficit after Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neurology 2001;248(6):483−6.
2. Charlotte Dorrnonville de la Cour, Johannes Jakobsen. Residual neuropathy in lond‑term population-based follow‑up of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Neurology 2005;64(2 of 2):246−53.
3. Jager A.E., Minderhoud J.M. Residual signs in severe Guillain-Barré syndrome: analysis of 57 patients. Neurol Sci. 1991;104(2):151−6.
4. Hughes R.A., Hadden R.D. et al. The prognosis and main prognostic indicators of Guillain-Barré syndrome. A multicentre prospective study of 297 patients. The Italian Guillain-Barre Study Group. Brain 1996; Vol 119,No 6,2053−2061.
5. Пирадов М.А., Супонева Н.А Синдром Гийена−Барре: современное состояние проблемы. I Национальная конференция с международным участием «Нейроинфекции». 2007. Аннотированные доклады. С. 99−102.
6. Ющук Н.Д., Тимченко О.Л., Морозова Е.А. и др. Совершенствование алгоритма диагностики демиелинизирующих полиневропатий. Леч Врач 2009; 10:31−5.
7. Löffel N.B., Mumenthaler M., Lütschg J. The Landry-Guillain-Barré-Strohlsyndrome. Prognosis in adults (author's transl). Fortschr. Neurol Psychiatr Grenzgeb 1977;45(5):279−92.
8. Koeppen S., Kraywinkel K., Wessendorf T.E. et al. Long‑term outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neurocrit. Care 2006;5(3):235−42.
9. Rong‑Kuo L., Lok‑Ming T., Cheng S.Y. et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in Taiwan: a clinical study of 167 patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1997;63:494−500.
10. Van Koningsveld R., Steyerberg E.W., Hughes R.A. et al. A clinical prognostic scoring system for Guillain−Barre syndrome. Lancet neurology 2007;6:589−94.
11. Petzold A., Brettschneider J., Jin K. et al. CSF protein biomarkers for proximal axonal damage improve prognostic accuracy in the acute phase of Guillain−Barre syndrome. Muscle Nerve 2009;40(1):42−9.
12. Супонева Н.А., Комелькова Л.В., Жирнова И.Г. и др. Иммунологическое исследование острых и хронических приобретенных полиневропатий. Аллергол и иммунол 2009;10(2):265−6.
13. Никитин С.С., Супонева Н.А., Грачева Л.А., Быкова Л.П. Антитела к ганглиозидам при острых и хронических аутоиммунных полиневропатиях. Вестн Уральской мед акад науки 2009; 2/1:126−8.
14. Никитин С.С., Супонева Н.А., Грачева Л.А. и др. Исследование антиганглиозидных аутоантител
15. у больных с острой и хронической воспалительной полиневропатией. Нейроиммунология 2009;VII(1):76−7.
16. Зиганшин Р.Х., Арапиди Г.П., Азаркин И.В. и др. Протеомные технологии для выявления в сыворотке крови потенциальных биомаркеров аутоиммунных демиелинизирующих полиневропатий. Биоорган хим 2011; 37(1):36−44.
17. Raman P.T., Taori G.M. Prognostic significance of electrodiagnostic studies in the Guillain-Barre syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1976;39:163−70.
18. Vedeler C.A., Wik E., Nyland H. The long‑term prognosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Evaluation of prognostic factors including plasma exchange. Acta Neurol Scand 1997;95(5):298−302.
19. Ropper A.H., Wijdicks E., Truax B. Guillain-Barré syndrome. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1991.
20. Пирадов М.А., Супонева Н.А. Синдром Гийена−Барре: диагностика и лечение. М.: МЕДпресс‑информ, 2011. 208 с.
21. Гехт Б.М. Теоретическая и клиническая электромиография. Ленинград: Наука, 1990. 230 с.
22. Гехт Б.М., Касаткина Л.Ф., Самойлов М.И., Санадзе А.Г. Электромиография в диагностике нервно- мышечных заболеваний. Таганрог, 1997. 370 с.
23. Гехт Б.М., Никитин С.С. Механизмы компенсаторной реиннервации при повреждении аксона периферических нервов. Журн неврол и психиатр 1986; 86(2):294−300.
24. Ruts L., van Koningsveld R., van Doorn P.A. Distinguishing acute‑oncet CIDP from Guillain-Barré syndrome with treatment related fluctuation. Neurology 2005;12;65(1):138−40.
25. Tamura N., Kuwabara S., Misawa S. et al. Time course of axonal regeneration in acute motor axonal neuropathy. Muscle Nerve 2007;35(6):793−5.
Review
For citations:
Grishina D.A., Suponeva N.A., Piradov M.A., Sergeev D.V. Electrophysiological criteria for the prognosis of the Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neuromuscular Diseases. 2012;(3):33-44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/2222-8721-2012-0-3-33-44
Views:
2598
Email this article 