Value of terminal latency index and sensory electrophysiology in idiopathic and diabetic chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.
CIDP
Myelin-associated glycoprotein
Nerve conduction study
Sensory electrophysiology
Sensory nerve action potential
Terminal latency index
Journal
Clinical neurophysiology practice
ISSN: 2467-981X
Titre abrégé: Clin Neurophysiol Pract
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101684308
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
12
09
2018
revised:
13
08
2019
accepted:
23
08
2019
entrez:
31
12
2019
pubmed:
31
12
2019
medline:
31
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate sensory electrophysiology, terminal latency index (TLI), and treatment response in idiopathic and diabetic chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). We performed a retrospective review of 147 patients with CIDP who underwent electrodiagnostic evaluation (January 2000-December 2015). Eighty-nine patients fulfilled electrophysiological criteria described by the Ad hoc Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and Albers et al. Fifty-eight patients were divided into idiopathic (N = 40) and diabetic (N = 18) groups. These groups were compared for age, sex, cerebrospinal fluid protein, response to treatment, sensory response abnormalities, and TLI measurements using chi-square tests for binary and categorical variables and using t-tests and mixed-effects models for continuous variables. The difference in abnormal rates of sensory responses was significant for the sural nerve, with the idiopathic group having a lower rate than the diabetic group (80% vs. 100%, p < 0.001). No group differences in the TLI measurements were significant. Sural sensory responses may have some value in differentiating idiopathic CIDP from diabetic CIDP. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings. Our study suggests that abnormal sural sensory potentials may have some significance in differentiating idiopathic CIDP from diabetic CIDP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31886444
doi: 10.1016/j.cnp.2019.08.002
pii: S2467-981X(19)30031-9
pmc: PMC6920505
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
190-193Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009 Jan;80(1):70-3
pubmed: 18768571
No To Shinkei. 1999 May;51(5):415-8
pubmed: 10396747
Muscle Nerve. 2001 Oct;24(10):1278-82
pubmed: 11562906
Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;118(9):1999-2004
pubmed: 17644033
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Jul;61(1):36-42
pubmed: 8676156
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 Feb;84(2):208-12
pubmed: 23243216
Eur J Neurol. 2015 May;22(5):806-14, e55
pubmed: 25623782
J Neurol. 1996 Jan;243(1):34-43
pubmed: 8869385
Brain. 1958 Jun;81(2):157-92
pubmed: 13572689
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 19;9(2):e89344
pubmed: 24586703
Front Neurol Neurosci. 2009;26:12-25
pubmed: 19349703
Brain. 1994 Oct;117 ( Pt 5):941-7
pubmed: 7953603
J Neurol Sci. 1996 Oct;142(1-2):59-64
pubmed: 8902721
Mayo Clin Proc. 1975 Nov;50(11):621-37
pubmed: 1186294
Neurology. 1986 May;36(5):647-52
pubmed: 3703263
Muscle Nerve. 2000 Jan;23(1):37-43
pubmed: 10590404
Muscle Nerve. 1993 Mar;16(3):262-6
pubmed: 8383290
Muscle Nerve. 1995 Jul;18(7):730-5
pubmed: 7540258