INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a nerve ultrasound score (Bochum ultrasound score, BUS), clinical, and electrophysiological parameters could distinguish subacute chronic (CIDP) from acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP). METHODS: Phase 1: The charts of 35 patients with polyradiculoneuropathy were evaluated retrospectively regarding BUS, clinical, and electrophysiological parameters (A-waves, sural nerve sparing pattern, sensory ratio>1). Phase 2: All parameters were evaluated prospectively in 10 patients with subacute polyradiculoneuropathy. RESULTS: Phase 1: A sum score of ≥2 points in BUS and the presence of sensory symptoms were significantly more frequent in the subacute CIDP group than in the AIDP group (P<0.001).The electrophysiological parameters showed no significant changes between the 2 groups. Phase 2: BUS (83.3%; 100%;), sensory symptoms (100%; 75%), absence of autonomic nervous system dysfunction (83.3%; 75%), or bulbar palsy (83.3%; 50%) showed the best sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing subacute CIDP from AIDP. CONCLUSIONS: BUS is a useful diagnostic tool for distinguishing subacute CIDP from AIDP.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a nerve ultrasound score (Bochum ultrasound score, BUS), clinical, and electrophysiological parameters could distinguish subacute chronic (CIDP) from acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP). METHODS: Phase 1: The charts of 35 patients with polyradiculoneuropathy were evaluated retrospectively regarding BUS, clinical, and electrophysiological parameters (A-waves, sural nerve sparing pattern, sensory ratio>1). Phase 2: All parameters were evaluated prospectively in 10 patients with subacute polyradiculoneuropathy. RESULTS: Phase 1: A sum score of ≥2 points in BUS and the presence of sensory symptoms were significantly more frequent in the subacute CIDP group than in the AIDP group (P<0.001).The electrophysiological parameters showed no significant changes between the 2 groups. Phase 2: BUS (83.3%; 100%;), sensory symptoms (100%; 75%), absence of autonomic nervous system dysfunction (83.3%; 75%), or bulbar palsy (83.3%; 50%) showed the best sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing subacute CIDP from AIDP. CONCLUSIONS: BUS is a useful diagnostic tool for distinguishing subacute CIDP from AIDP.
Authors: Vera Bril; Christopher M Blanchette; Joshua M Noone; M Chris Runken; Deborah Gelinas; James W Russell Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Nurcan Üçeyler; Kristina A Schäfer; Daniel Mackenrodt; Claudia Sommer; Wolfgang Müllges Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 4.003