| Literature DB >> 23185328 |
Sudheera S Jayasinghe1, Kithsiri D Pathirana, Nick A Buckley.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following acute organophosphorus (OP) poisoning patients complain of numbness without objective sensory abnormalities or other features of OP induced delayed polyneuropathy. The aim of this study was to measure peripheral nerve function after acute exposure to OP.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23185328 PMCID: PMC3502513 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Flow diagram of recruitment of participants.
Descriptive data of the patients and the controls.
| Descriptive data | Number of patients (n = 70) | Number of controls (n = 70) |
| Age (years) | 31.8 (12.2) | 32.7 (11.9) |
| Height (cm) | 158.7 (7.5) | 158.7 (10.6) |
| Weight (kg) | 54.9 (10.8) | 54.7 (9.4) |
|
| ||
| No | 36 | 41 |
| Yes - occasional | 18 | 5 |
| Yes - regular | 16 | 24 |
|
| ||
| No | 40 | 43 |
| Yes - occasional | 5 | 2 |
| Yes - regular | 25 | 25 |
Values are mean (SD).
Number of poisoned cases by type of OP.
| Type of OP | Number of poisoned cases |
| Chlorpyrifos | 26 |
| Dimethoate | 12 |
| Profenofos | 5 |
| Diazinon | 4 |
| Malathion | 2 |
| Fenthion | 1 |
| Others | 3 |
| Type of OP was not identified | 17 |
The number of participants who underwent individual neurophysiological assessment.
| Neurophysiological assessment | First assessment of the patients (n = 70) | Second assessment of 2the patients (n = 53) | Controls (n = 70) |
| Median sensory nerve conduction studies | 61 | 48 | 68 |
| Ulnar sensory nerve conduction studies | 58 | 45 | 70 |
| Median motor nerve conduction studies | 70 | 53 | 69 |
| Ulnar motor nerve conduction studies | 70 | 53 | 70 |
| Common peroneal motor nerve conduction studies | 66 | 48 | 68 |
| Median F-wave studies | 70 | 53 | 69 |
| Ulnar F-wave studies | 69 | 53 | 69 |
| Tibial F-wave studies | 65 | 50 | 65 |
Effects of acute OP exposure on peripheral nerve function compared to healthy controls.
| Neurophysiological assessment | First assessment of the patients | Second assessment of the patients | Controls | Difference (Controls - 1st assessment) | 95% CI/P value (Controls - 1st assessment) | Difference (Controls - 2nd assessment) | 95% CI/P value (Controls - 2nd assessment) | Difference (1st assessment - 2nd assessment) | 95% CI/P value (1st assessment - 2nd assessment) |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 53.6 (1.0) | 52.8 (1.2) | 56.0 (0.7) | 2.3 | −0.2 to 4.7 | 3.2 | 0.6 to 5.8 | 1.2 | −0.6 to 3 |
| Ulnar | 55.3 (0.9) | 55.9 (1.0) | 59.7 (0.6) | 4.4 | 2.3 to 6.5 | 3.7 | 1.5 to 5.9 | 0.01 | −2.5 to 2.5 |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 14.3 (10.4) | 12.9 (10.6) | 13.4 (7.1) | −0.9 | −4 to 2 | 0.5 | −3 to 4 | 0.5 | −5 to 4 |
| Ulnar | 7.4 (6.3) | 7.2 (7.4) | 7.7 (4.3) | 0.3 | −2 to 2 | 0.4 | −2 to 3 | 0.8 | −4 to 3 |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 55.2 (0.5) | 55.6 (0.6) | 56.6 (0.4) | 1.4 | 0.1 to 2.7 | 1.05 | −0.4 to 2.5 | −0.8 | −1.7 to 0.06 |
| Ulnar | 53.9 (0.6) | 54.4 (0.7) | 56.2 (0.5) | 2.3 | 0.7 to 3.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 to 3.5 | −0.4 | −1.4 to 0.7 |
| Common peroneal | 46.6 (0.6) | 48.2 (0.7) | 49.4 (0.6) | 2.8 | 1.1 to 4.5 | 1.2 | −0.7 to 3.1 | −1.2 | −2.3 to 0.1 |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 13.4 (0.4) | 14.2 (0.6) | 14.4 (0.5) | 0.9 | −0.4 to 2.3 | 0.1 | −1.5 to 1.7 | −0.7 | −1.5 to 0.08 |
| Ulnar | 9.5 (0.3) | 10.0 (0.3) | 10.5 (0.3) | 1.0 | 0.2 to 1.8 | 0.5 | −0.4 to 1.3 | −0.3 | −0.8 to 0.3 |
| Common peroneal | 7.7 (0.4) | 7.2 (0.4) | 8.7 (0.4) | 0.9 | −0.2 to 2.1 | 1.4 | 0.3 to 2.6 | 0.6 | −0.2 to 1.3 |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 32.3 (1.2) | 30.9 (1.4) | 33.6 (1.2) | 1.4 | −2.0 to 4.8 | 2.7 | −0.9 to 6.3 | 0.9 | −0.7 to 2.7 |
| Ulnar | 18.7 (0.8) | 17.1 (0.7) | 19.5 (0.5) | 0.8 | −1.0 to 2.6 | 2.3 | 0.6 to 4 | 1.3 | −0.02 to 2.6 |
| Common peroneal | 15.3 (0.8) | 13.1 (0.7) | 16.2 (0.8) | 0.9 | −1.4 to 3.2 | 3 | 0.8 to 5.2 | 2.7 | 1.2 to 4.2 |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 27.2 (0.4) | 26.8 (0.3) | 26.7 (0.3) | −0.4 | −1.3 to 0.4 | −0.1 | −0.9 to 0.7 | 0.3 | −0.4 to 0.9 |
| Ulnar | 27.0 (0.3) | 27.3 (0.4) | 26.7 (0.3) | −0.3 | −1.2 to 0.5 | −0.6 | −1.6 to 0.3 | −0.3 | −0.9 to 0.3 |
| Tibial | 50.9 (0.6) | 49.4 (0.8) | 49.6 (0.6) | −1.3 | −3.1 to 0.4 | 0.2 | −1.7 to 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.2 to 3.6 |
|
| |||||||||
| Median | 82 (2) | 78 (3) | 90(1) | 9 | 0.005 | 12 | 0.002 | 3 | 0.4 |
| Ulnar | 83(3) | 84(2) | 93 (1) | 10 | 0.001 | 9 | 0.002 | −2 | 0.6 |
| Tibial | 89(2) | 92 (2) | 93 (2) | 4 | 0.059 | 1 | 0.6 | −0.3 | 0.8 |
values are as mean and SE, analyzed using.
Mann-Whitney U test and
Wilcoxon signed rank test,
significant at 0.05 level.
Figure 2Wave forms of nerve conduction studies.
Figure 2.1 - Median nerve sensory action potential, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.2 - Ulnar nerve sensory action potential, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.3 - Median nerve CMAP, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.4 - Ulnar nerve CMAP, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.5 - Common peroneal nerve CMAP, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.6 - Median nerve F-waves, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.7 - Ulnar nerve F-waves, (A) control, (B) patient. Figure 2.8 - Tibial nerve F-waves, (A) control, (B) patient.
Correlation matrix of neurophysiological indices with potential confounders. The analysis was done with Spearman's correlation.
| Neurophysiological assessment | Alcohol consumption | Smoking habits | ChE activity | Type of OP ingested | GCS on admission | PAM therapy |
|
| ||||||
| Median | −0.004 (0.8) | −0.03 (0.8) | 0.09 (0.6) | −0.06 (0.7) | 0.1 (0.4) | −0.3 (0.03) |
| Ulnar | −0.006 (0.6) | −0.09 (0.5) | −0.01 (0.9) | −0.2 (0.06) | 0.09 (0.5) | −0.3 (0.04) |
|
| ||||||
| Median | −0.2 (0.4) | −0.2 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.9) | −0.06 (0.6) | −0.1 (0.4) | −0.2 (0.09) |
| Ulnar | −0.3 (0.005) | −0.3 (0.008) | −0.09 (0.6) | −0.09 (0.5) | 0.02 (0.8) | −0.3 (0.009) |
| Common peroneal | −0.2 (0.1) | −0.2 (0.05) | −0.1 (0.5) | −0.01 (0.9) | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.03 (0.8) |
|
| ||||||
| Median | 0.03 (0.8) | −0.1 (0.3) | −0.4 (0.5) | 0.2 (0.09) | 0.3 (0.01) | −0.2 (0.06) |
| Ulnar | −0.1 (0.3) | −0.008 (0.5) | −0.2 (0.4) | −0.1 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.07) | −0.1 (0.4) |
| Common peroneal | −0.1 (0.3) | −0.1 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.01 (0.9) | 0.04 (0.7) | −0.04 (0.7) |
|
| ||||||
| Median | 0.07 (0.5) | −0.06 (0.6) | −0.3 (0.1) | 0.09 (0.4) | 0.2 (0.04) | 0.3 (0.01) |
| Ulnar | 0.1 (0.4) | 0.1 (0.3) | −0.2 (0.4) | −0.3 (0.009) | 0.1 (0.2) | −0.1 (0.4) |
| Common peroneal | −0.1 (0.4) | −0.1 (0.3) | 0.2 (0.3) | <0.001 (0.9) | 0.09 (0.5) | −0.1 (0.4) |
|
| ||||||
| Median | 0.3 (0.02) | 0.2 (0.05) | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.05 (0.7) | 0.02 (0.9) | 0.005 (0.9) |
| Ulnar | 0.3 (0.02) | 0.4 (0.003) | 0.2 (0.2) | 0.08 (0.5) | −0.004 (0.9) | 0.03 (0.8) |
| Tibial | 0.2 (0.06) | 0.3 (0.04) | 0.1 (0.5) | 0.09 (0.4) | 0.01 (0.9) | −0.2 (0.1) |
|
| ||||||
| Median | −0.02 (0.9) | −0.1 (0.3) | −0.2 (0.2) | 0.1 (0.3) | 0.1 (0.3) | −0.05 (0.7) |
| Ulnar | 0.1 (0.4) | 0.004 (0.9) | −0.2 (0.3) | 0.1 (0.2) | −0.008 (0.9) | −0.01 (0.4) |
| Tibial | 0.1 (0.4) | 0.1 (0.4) | −0.1 (0.5) | 0.1 (0.4) | 0.03 (0.8) | −0.3 (0.02) |
Values are Spearman's correlation coefficient (P value),
Significant at 0.05 level.
Sensory and motor nerve conduction studies - multiple linear regression for confounders.
| Dependent variable | Independent variables | Regression (B) | Standard error of B (SE) | 95% confidence interval for β |
|
| ||||
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.8 | 1.8 | −4 to 3 |
| Smoking habits | 1.0 | 1.6 | −2 to 4 | |
| Type of OP | −0.4 | 1.5 | −4 to 3 | |
| PAM therapy | −5.9 | 2.7 | −11 to −0.7 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.4 | 0.4 | −0.4 to 1.2 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.6 | 1.6 | −3 to 3 |
| Smoking habits | −0.3 | 1.4 | −3 to 2 | |
| Type of OP | −2.7 | 1.4 | −5 to 0.05 | |
| PAM therapy | −3.4 | 2.3 | −8 to 1 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.03 | 0.4 | −0.7 to 0.8 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Alcohol consumption | −1.0 | 0.9 | −3 to 0.7 |
| Smoking habits | −0.3 | 0.8 | −2 to 1.3 | |
| Type of OP | −0.4 | 0.7 | −2 to 1 | |
| PAM therapy | −1.2 | 1.3 | −4 to 1.4 | |
| GCS on admission | −0.1 | 0.2 | −0.6 to 0.3 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −1.5 | 0.5 | −3 to 0.4 |
| Smoking habits | −0.7 | 0.5 | −2 to 0.9 | |
| Type of OP | −1.1 | 0.4 | −3 to 0.5 | |
| PAM therapy | −1.8 | 0.8 | −5 to 1 | |
| GCS on admission | −0.07 | 0.1 | −0.5 to 0.4 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.5 | 0.7 | −3 to 2 |
| Smoking habits | −0.9 | 0.6 | −3 to 1 | |
| Type of OP | −0.3 | 0.6 | −2 to 1.5 | |
| PAM therapy | 0.8 | 1.1 | −2 to 4 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.4 to 0.7 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Alcohol consumption | 1.1 | 0.7 | −0.3 to 2.5 |
| Smoking habits | −0.8 | 0.6 | −2 to 0.5 | |
| Type of OP | 1.1 | 0.6 | −0.09 to 2 | |
| PAM therapy | −2.1 | 1.1 | −4 to 0.04 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.2 | 0.2 | −0.2 to 0.5 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.4 | 0.5 | −1.4 to 0.6 |
| Smoking habits | −0.1 | 0.5 | −1 to 0.8 | |
| Type of OP | −0.7 | 0.4 | −1.5 to 0.2 | |
| PAM therapy | 0.08 | 0.8 | −1.5 to 1.6 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.2 | 0.1 | −0.03 to 0.9 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.3 | 0.7 | −2 to 1 |
| Smoking habits | −0.4 | 0.6 | −2 to 0.8 | |
| Type of OP | −0.4 | 0.6 | −2 to 0.8 | |
| PAM therapy | 0.01 | 1.1 | −2 to 2 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.2 to 0.5 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Alcohol consumption | 3.1 | 2.1 | −1 to 7 |
| Smoking habits | −1.9 | 1.8 | −6 to 2 | |
| Type of OP | 1.3 | 1.7 | −2 to 5 | |
| PAM therapy | −7.3 | 3.1 | −14 to −1 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.5 | 0.5 | −0.5 to 2 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.6 | 1.3 | −3 to 2 |
| Smoking habits | 1.0 | 1.1 | −1 to 3 | |
| Type of OP | −3.0 | 1.0 | −5 to −0.9 | |
| PAM therapy | −1.3 | 1.9 | −5 to 3 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.5 | 0.3 | −0.1 to 1.1 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −0.7 | 1.4 | −4 to 2 |
| Smoking habits | −0.6 | 1.3 | −3 to 2 | |
| Type of OP | −0.6 | 1.2 | −3 to 2 | |
| PAM therapy | −0.9 | 2.2 | −5 to 3 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.3 | 0.4 | −0.5 to 0.9 |
Significant at 0.05 level.
F wave studies - multiple linear regression for confounders.
| Dependent variable | Independent variables | Regression (B) | Standard error of B (SE) | 95% confidence interval for β |
|
| ||||
|
| Alcohol consumption | 0.6 | 0.6 | −0.6 to 1.8 |
| Smoking habits | 0.5 | 0.5 | −0.5 to 1.6 | |
| Type of OP | 0.3 | 0.5 | −0.7 to 1.2 | |
| PAM therapy | −0.1 | 0.9 | −2 to 2 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.1 | 0.1 | −0.2 to 0.4 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | 1.1 | 0.6 | −0.08 to 2 |
| Smoking habits | 0.2 | 0.5 | −0.8 to 1.2 | |
| Type of OP | 0.8 | 0.5 | −0.2 to 1.7 | |
| PAM therapy | 0.1 | 0.8 | −1.6 to 1.8 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.2 | 0.1 | −0.1 to 0.4 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | 0.8 | 1.1 | −1.3 to 3 |
| Smoking habits | 1.3 | 0.9 | −0.5 to 3 | |
| Type of OP | 0.7 | 0.8 | −0.9 to 2.4 | |
| PAM therapy | −3.6 | 1.5 | −7 to −0.7 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.2 | 0.2 | −0.2 to 0.7 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Alcohol consumption | 4.5 | 3.6 | −3 to 12 |
| Smoking habits | −3.2 | 3.1 | −10 to 3 | |
| Type of OP | 3.1 | 2.9 | −3 to 9 | |
| PAM therapy | −1.2 | 5.4 | −11 to 10 | |
| GCS on admission | −0.9 | 0.9 | −3 to 0.9 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | 5.7 | 4.3 | −3 to 14 |
| Smoking habits | −1.4 | 3.8 | −9 to 6 | |
| Type of OP | 5.7 | 3.6 | −2 to 13 | |
| PAM therapy | −2.3 | 6.5 | −15 to 11 | |
| GCS on admission | 0.2 | 1.1 | −2 to 2 | |
|
| Alcohol consumption | −2.1 | 3.5 | −9 to 5 |
| Smoking habits | 4.3 | 3.0 | −2 to 10 | |
| Type of OP | 2.5 | 2.8 | −3 to 8 | |
| PAM therapy | −11.9 | 4.9 | −22 to 2 | |
| GCS on admission | 1.2 | 0.8 | −0.4 to 3 |
Significant at 0.05 level.
Studies of pesticide exposure and peripheral nerve function.
| Study | Exposure state | Exposed population | Substance | Number | Comparison group | Findings |
| Boildin et al (1979) | Acute | Adult cats | DFP (OP) | 5 | none | Focal distal non terminal axonal degeneration |
| Jayawardana et al (2008) | Acute | Patients | OP | 60 | none | Normal sensory and motor nerve conduction |
| Steenland et al (1994) | Acute on chronic | Farm workers | OP | 83 | Friends | Normal nerve conduction studies (Significant deficit was observed in nerve conduction velocity and/or amplitude among men poisoned by chlorpyrifos or phosalone) |
| Senanayake et al (1987) | Acute | Patients with intermediate syndrome | OP | 6 | none | Normal nerve conduction |
| Senanayake et al (1982) | Acute | Patients | Methamidophos | 10 | none | EMG denervation, normal nerve conduction |
| Kamel et al (2004) | Review article | - | Pesticide | - | - | High-level exposure to OP can cause sensory abnormalities and motor dysfunction. But there was less evidence that low to moderate level exposure to OP was related to deficits in sensory or motor function or peripheral nerve conduction. |
| Steenland et al (2000) | Chronic | Termiticide applicators | Chlorpyrifos | 191 | friends | Sensory neuropathy |
| Engle et al (1998) | Chronic | Farm workers | OP | 67 | Matched reference subjects | Normal nerve conduction studies |
| Misra et al (1998) | Chronic | Farm workers | Fenthion | 24 | Same subjects three weeks withdrawal from work | Reduction of peroneal MNCV, distal motor latency of median and peroneal |
| Ruijten et al (1994) | Chronic | Farm workers | Mixed pesticide | 131 | Volenteers from the general population | Decreased motor nerve conduction velocity was found in median and peroneal nerves. Sensory nerve conduction velocity was found in median and sural nerves. |