| Literature DB >> 28588819 |
Emilia Österlund-Tauriala1, Juhani V Partanen2.
Abstract
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) may present as distal acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (AIDP), with severe distal demyelination of the peripheral nerves in the absence of radiculitis. Clinical course is benign, and prognosis seems favorable, but nerve conduction studies (NCS) findings at nadir may resemble some chronic forms of polyneuropathy, so close follow-up during recovery is needed.Entities:
Keywords: Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy; Guillain–Barré syndrome; acute polyneuropathy; distal AIDP; electroneuromyography
Year: 2017 PMID: 28588819 PMCID: PMC5457988 DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Case Rep ISSN: 2050-0904
Nerve conduction studies
| Variable | Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 50 | Day 190 | Day 6 | Day 28 | Day 101 | Day 165 | 1.5 years | Day 51 | Day 191 | 5 years | |
| Median motor | ||||||||||
| DML | 19.4 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 19 | 11.7 | 9.4 | 4.3 | 10.9 | 4.5 | 3.9 |
| CMAPamp | 2.9 | 4.7 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 2.3 | 4.2 | 8.1 | 2.9 | 6.7 | 8.8 |
| CMAPdur | 9.7 | 5 | 17.3 | 27.3 | 12.6 | 8.6 | 5.7 | 10.5 | 4.2 | 4.1 |
| MCV | – | 51.5 | 54.7 | 51.5 | 53.5 | 50 | 53.5 | 54 | 55.9 | 59.5 |
| FminL | – | 32.8 | 31.3 | 64 | 40.2 | 36.3 | 27.9 | – | 27 | 27 |
| Z score | 5 | 3 | 29.9 | 10.3 | 7.1 | 0.3 | 1.5 | |||
| H refl L | 19 | 17 | – | 17.5 | 17.5 | 17.7 | 17 | – | – | 14.5 |
|
| 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.3 | −0.5 | |||
| Ulnar motor | ||||||||||
| DML | 4.3 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 10.2 | 7.3 | 5.6 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 3 |
| CMAPamp | 3.8 | 4 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 7.7 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 5.1 | 5.6 |
| CMAPdur | 8.3 | 4.6 | 6.6 | 16.5 | 12.4 | 9.5 | 7.0 | 6.3 | 5.6 | 5.2 |
| MCV | 37.2 | 50.4 | 57.7 | 52.8 | 49.2 | 52 | 59.3 | 52.4 | 56.4 | 59.5 |
| FminL | NR | 30.3 | 30.5 | NR | 37 | 33.8 | 28.3 | 28.5 | 25.6 | 25.3 |
|
| 1.8 | 1.2 | 6 | 3.6 | −0.5 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 0.2 | ||
| Deep peroneal motor | ||||||||||
| DML | 26.2 | 6.3 | 8.3 | 19 | 11.4 | 8.1 | 4.4 | 7.2 | 3.8 | 4.2 |
| CMAPamp | 0.3 | 2.4 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 2.4 |
| CMAPdur | 17.8 | 5.4 | 11.4 | 27.3 | 13.1 | 12 | 11 | 14.8 | 5.3 | 5.1 |
| MCV | – | 45.9 | 48.9 | 43.5 | 44.7 | 42.1 | 43.4 | 48 | 51.4 | 52.2 |
| FminL | NR | 55.8 | 30.5 | 69.6 | 60.3 | 58.5 | 54 | 50.1 | 44.3 | 43.1 |
|
| 4.3 | 1.2 | 10 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | |
| Tibial motor | ||||||||||
| DML | 29.2 | 7.3 | 5 | 13.7 | 11.5 | 8.8 | 6.1 | 7.3 | – | 5 |
| CMAPamp | 0.1 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 2.8 | 0.6 | 5.1 | |
| CMAPdur | 19 | 4.7 | 29.6 | 36.1 | 34.6 | 22.4 | 8.4 | 28.8 | 5.5 | |
| H refl L | 31.2 | 30.3 | 31.3 | 32 | 31.5 | 31.7 | 31.5 | 27.7 | 27.3 | 27.2 |
|
| 1.7 | 1 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Median sensory | ||||||||||
| AntebrA | 14 | 28 | 37 | 49 | 48 | 57 | 58 | 17 | 16 | 23 |
| AntebrCV | 69.4 | 70.6 | 60.5 | 63.6 | 63.5 | 62.2 | 63.2 | 67.1 | 67.7 | 70.3 |
| 3 fing A | 6 | 27 | 29 | NR | NR | 9 | 27 | NR | 13 | 46 |
| 3 fing CV | 20.1 | 40.9 | 48.3 | NR | NR | 30.4 | 54.8 | NR | 37.5 | 44.3 |
| Radial sensory | ||||||||||
| SNAP | 25 | 43 | 53 | 22 | 14 | 15 | 36 | 24 | 36 | 45 |
| SCV | 60.6 | 64.1 | 55.9 | 58.6 | 52.6 | 59.9 | 54.6 | 63.3 | 61.7 | 66.7 |
| Superficial peroneal sensory | ||||||||||
| SNAP | 1.8 | 4.7 | 6.8 | NR | 1.1 | 1.7 | 4.9 | 5 | 9.2 | 15 |
| SCV | 35.7 | 43.3 | 44.6 | NR | 33 | 35.3 | 45.2 | 41.4 | 48 | 54.3 |
| Sural sensory | ||||||||||
| SNAP | 15 | 24 | 18 | 14 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 15 | 17 |
| SCV | 47.1 | 50 | 50.4 | 47.4 | 48.3 | 48 | 47.8 | 48 | 52.2 | 52.3 |
DML, distal motor latency; CMAP, compound muscle action potential; MCV, motor (nerve) conduction velocity; SCV, sensory (nerve) conduction velocity; SNAP, sensory nerve action potential; NR, no response.
Figure 1Tibial CMAP: 6 days after onset; at nadir; and three times during recovery. dLAT/CV, distal motor latency (ms); AMP, amplitude of the compound muscle action potential (mV); DUR, duration of the motor response (ms).
Figure 2Peroneal F‐responses at onset (patient 2). The minimum latency is increased, but there are no A‐waves. Note also the wide temporal dispersion and diminished amplitude of the CMAP.