| Literature DB >> 25885891 |
Elisabeth Chroni1,2, Dimitra Veltsista3, Evangelia Gavanozi4, Tavitha Vlachou5, Panagiotis Polychronopoulos6, Panagiotis Papathanasopoulos7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) as a pure sensory variant is rarely encountered. Therefore the best treatment option is hard to define. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We reported two middle-aged patients of Caucasian origin, one female and one male, who over a period of several months presented limbs and gait ataxia. Clinical and neurophysiological examination revealed only sensory abnormalities. A diagnosis of atypical CIDP was suggested, considering the elevated CSF protein level and the presence of anti-gangliosides antibodies. Ten and 15 days respectively after initiation of prednisolone treatment both patients experienced exacerbation of sensory symptoms and emerging of muscle weakness. Steroids were then substituted by rituximab in the first patient and intravenous immunoglobulin in the second patient resulting in gradual decrement of symptoms and signs. Two-year follow-up showed no further deterioration.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25885891 PMCID: PMC4359520 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-015-0291-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Electrophysiological results in two patients with clinically pure sensory deficits
|
| ||||||
|
|
| |||||
| Pt. 1 | Pt. 2 | Normal limit | Pt. 1 | Pt. 2 | Normal limit | |
| Distal latency (ms) | 2.8 | 3.1 | <3.5 | 3.7 | 4.8 | <5.0 |
| Amplitude (mV)# | 8.3/8.0 | 6.8/6.4 | >5.0 | 3.9/3.2 | 3.4/3.1 | >2.0 |
| Duration (ms)# | 4.6/5.3 | 5.1/5.7 | <6.7§ | 4.8/5.4 | 6.3/6.5 | <7.6§ |
| Velocity (m/s) | 60 | 50 | ≥50 | 46 | 39 | ≥41 |
| F wave lat. min/max (ms) | 31/35 | 32/37 | <32/35* | 50/61 | 55/69 | <55/64* |
| F wave persistence (%) | 90 | 80 | >70 | 70 | 50 | >20 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
| |||||
| Pt. 1 | Pt. 2 | Normal limit | Pt. 1 | Pt. 2 | Normal limit | |
| Amplitude (μV) | 2.0 | Absent | >10 | 1.7 | Absent | >7 |
| Velocity (m/s) | 48 | - | ≥50 | 56 | - | ≥45 |
|
|
| |||||
| Pat1 | Pat2 | Normal limit | Pat 1 | Pat 2 | Normal limit | |
| Amplitude (μV) | 5.9 | 4.5 | >15 | 14 | 3.4 | >7 |
| Velocity (m/s) | 63 | 58 | ≥55 | 62 | 43 | ≥45 |
#Measurements following stimulation at the wrist/above elbow and at the ankle/above knee.
*Calculated from samples of 20 F waves for the patients’ age and height; §duration limits were adopted from those published by EFNS/PNS [11].
Figure 1Clinical assessment scores of a 58 year old woman are plotted against treatment regime at different time-points.
Figure 2Clinical assessment scores of a 55 year old man are plotted against treatment regime at different time-points.