BACKGROUND: Evoked potentials are used in the functional assessment of sensory and motor pathways. Their usefulness in monitoring the evolution of multiple sclerosis has not been fully clarified. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine the usefulness of multimodal evoked potential in predicting paraclinical outcomes of disease severity and as a prognostic marker in multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Eighty four patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis underwent Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and functional system scoring at study entry and after a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 30.5 (11.7) months. Sensory and motor evoked potentials were obtained in all patients at study entry and at follow-up in 64 of them, and quantified according to a conventional score. RESULTS: Cross-sectionally, the severity of each evoked potential score significantly correlated with the corresponding functional system (0.32 < R < 0.60, p < 0.01, for all but follow-up visual evoked potential) and with EDSS (0.34 < R < 0.61; p < 0.001 for all but brain stem evoked potential). EDSS significantly correlated with global evoked potential score severity (baseline R = 0.60, follow-up R = 0.46, p < 0.001). Using longitudinal analysis, only changes in somatosensory evoked potential scores were significantly correlated with changes of sensory functional system (R = 0.34, p = 0.006). However, patients with multiple sclerosis with disability progression at follow-up had more severe baseline evoked potential scores than patients who remained stable. Patients with severe baseline global evoked potential score (higher than the median value) had a risk of 72.5% to progress on disability at follow-up, whereas patients with multiple sclerosis with lower scores had a risk of only 36.3%. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that evoked potential is a good marker of the severity of nervous damage in multiple sclerosis and may have a predictive value regarding the evolution of disability.
BACKGROUND: Evoked potentials are used in the functional assessment of sensory and motor pathways. Their usefulness in monitoring the evolution of multiple sclerosis has not been fully clarified. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine the usefulness of multimodal evoked potential in predicting paraclinical outcomes of disease severity and as a prognostic marker in multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Eighty four patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis underwent Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and functional system scoring at study entry and after a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 30.5 (11.7) months. Sensory and motor evoked potentials were obtained in all patients at study entry and at follow-up in 64 of them, and quantified according to a conventional score. RESULTS: Cross-sectionally, the severity of each evoked potential score significantly correlated with the corresponding functional system (0.32 < R < 0.60, p < 0.01, for all but follow-up visual evoked potential) and with EDSS (0.34 < R < 0.61; p < 0.001 for all but brain stem evoked potential). EDSS significantly correlated with global evoked potential score severity (baseline R = 0.60, follow-up R = 0.46, p < 0.001). Using longitudinal analysis, only changes in somatosensory evoked potential scores were significantly correlated with changes of sensory functional system (R = 0.34, p = 0.006). However, patients with multiple sclerosis with disability progression at follow-up had more severe baseline evoked potential scores than patients who remained stable. Patients with severe baseline global evoked potential score (higher than the median value) had a risk of 72.5% to progress on disability at follow-up, whereas patients with multiple sclerosis with lower scores had a risk of only 36.3%. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that evoked potential is a good marker of the severity of nervous damage in multiple sclerosis and may have a predictive value regarding the evolution of disability.
Authors: M Filippi; A Campi; S Mammi; V Martinelli; T Locatelli; G Scotti; S Amadio; N Canal; G Comi Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: O Fernández; V Fernández; T Arbizu; G Izquierdo; I Bosca; R Arroyo; J A García Merino; E de Ramón Journal: J Neurol Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Paolo Invernizzi; Laura Bertolasi; Maria Rachele Bianchi; Marco Turatti; Alberto Gajofatto; Maria Donata Benedetti Journal: J Neurol Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: I Magnano; G M Pes; M P Cabboi; G Pilurzi; F Ginatempo; A Achene; A Salis; M Conti; Franca Deriu Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: N Margaritella; L Mendozzi; M Garegnani; E Colicino; E Gilardi; L Deleonardis; F Tronci; L Pugnetti Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2011-11-27 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Claire M Rice; David I Marks; Peter Walsh; Nick M Kane; Martin G Guttridge; Juliana Redondo; Pamela Sarkar; Denise Owen; Alastair Wilkins; Neil J Scolding Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 2.692