Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.
Guillain–Barré syndrome
Outcome
Polyradiculoneuropathy
Prognosis
Journal
Neurocritical care
ISSN: 1556-0961
Titre abrégé: Neurocrit Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101156086
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
15
02
2023
accepted:
23
02
2023
medline:
7
6
2023
pubmed:
26
3
2023
entrez:
25
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10-30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates. A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: "When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?" Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format. Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete clinical condition as opposed to a single variable during prognostication. These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of the need for mechanical ventilation, poor functional outcome, and independent ambulation following GBS in the context of counseling patients and/or surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence, and higher quality data are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10-30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates.
METHODS
A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: "When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?" Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.
RESULTS
Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete clinical condition as opposed to a single variable during prognostication.
CONCLUSIONS
These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of the need for mechanical ventilation, poor functional outcome, and independent ambulation following GBS in the context of counseling patients and/or surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence, and higher quality data are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36964442
doi: 10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3
pii: 10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3
pmc: PMC10241707
doi:
Types de publication
Guideline
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
564-583Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Eur Neurol. 2009;61(6):358-63
pubmed: 19365128
Crit Care. 2015 Sep 02;19:310
pubmed: 26330143
Eur J Neurol. 2000 Jan;7(1):11-6
pubmed: 10809910
QJM. 2020 Feb 1;113(2):93-99
pubmed: 31504947
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Jul;6(7):589-94
pubmed: 17537676
Ann Neurol. 1978 Jun;3(6):565-6
pubmed: 677829
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012 Jul;83(7):711-8
pubmed: 22566597
Med J Aust. 2018 Mar 5;208(4):181-188
pubmed: 29490222
J Neurol. 2014 Oct;261(10):1986-93
pubmed: 25082629
Muscle Nerve. 1991 Nov;14(11):1103-9
pubmed: 1745285
J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2022 Mar 1;23(3):119-123
pubmed: 35188907
Acta Neurol Scand. 2022 Jan;145(1):73-78
pubmed: 34468016
J Crit Care. 2014 Apr;29(2):219-23
pubmed: 24378177
Lancet Neurol. 2006 Dec;5(12):1021-8
pubmed: 17110282
Neurology. 2010 Oct 19;75(16):1439-47
pubmed: 20861454
J Clin Neurosci. 2020 Aug;78:185-188
pubmed: 32334960
Neurol Sci. 2022 Jun;43(6):3923-3928
pubmed: 35067827
Cureus. 2021 Nov 4;13(11):e19260
pubmed: 34900457
Neurol India. 2021 Jan-Feb;69(1):107-114
pubmed: 33642280
Neurohospitalist. 2021 Oct;11(4):303-309
pubmed: 34567390
Neuroepidemiology. 2015;44(4):249-54
pubmed: 26088600
Neurology. 2000 Jun 27;54(12):2311-5
pubmed: 10881259
Muscle Nerve. 2017 May;55(5):748-751
pubmed: 27750406
Acta Neurol Scand. 2020 Mar;141(3):236-241
pubmed: 31705530
Expert Rev Neurother. 2021 Apr;21(4):455-461
pubmed: 33567916
Lancet. 2021 Mar 27;397(10280):1214-1228
pubmed: 33647239
J Assoc Physicians India. 2005 Sep;53:764-8
pubmed: 16334619
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005 May;76(5):719-22
pubmed: 15834034
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Sep-Oct;76(5):411-9
pubmed: 9354496
Eur J Neurol. 2000 Nov;7(6):685-92
pubmed: 11136356
Neurology. 2022 Feb 1;98(5):e518-e532
pubmed: 34937789
Neurology. 2013 Apr 30;80(18):1650-4
pubmed: 23576619
Ann Neurol. 2010 Jun;67(6):781-7
pubmed: 20517939
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2014 Mar;19(1):36-43
pubmed: 24456386
Arch Neurol. 2001 Jun;58(6):893-8
pubmed: 11405803
PeerJ. 2022 Feb 10;10:e12930
pubmed: 35186497
Brain. 1995 Jun;118 ( Pt 3):597-605
pubmed: 7600081
Int J Neurosci. 2017 Apr;127(4):344-349
pubmed: 26971365
Ann Neurol. 2022 Apr;91(4):521-531
pubmed: 35106830
Nat Rev Neurol. 2019 Nov;15(11):671-683
pubmed: 31541214
J Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;27(7):311-316
pubmed: 28283417
N Engl J Med. 1992 Apr 23;326(17):1123-9
pubmed: 1552913
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 3;16(2):e0245826
pubmed: 33534851
Muscle Nerve. 2016 Jan;53(1):134-6
pubmed: 26437790
J Neurol. 2013 May;260(5):1367-74
pubmed: 23299621
QJM. 2016 May;109(5):319-23
pubmed: 26475599
N Engl J Med. 1995 Nov 23;333(21):1374-9
pubmed: 7477117
Neuroepidemiology. 2011;36(2):123-33
pubmed: 21422765
Ann Neurol. 1993 Apr;33(4):333-42
pubmed: 8489203
Neurocrit Care. 2017 Feb;26(1):6-13
pubmed: 27538676
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 May;51(5):605-12
pubmed: 2841422
Acta Neurol Scand. 2020 Nov;142(5):466-474
pubmed: 32497277
Neurology. 1997 Mar;48(3):695-700
pubmed: 9065550
Crit Care. 2011;15(1):R65
pubmed: 21338488
Lancet. 1978 Oct 7;2(8093):750-3
pubmed: 80682
J Neurol Sci. 2021 Sep 15;428:117589
pubmed: 34325159
J Clin Neurol. 2022 Jan;18(1):48-58
pubmed: 35021276
Brain. 2014 Jan;137(Pt 1):33-43
pubmed: 24163275
Neurocrit Care. 2021 Dec;35(3):775-782
pubmed: 34021483
Neurology. 1999 Aug 11;53(3):598-604
pubmed: 10449126
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;81(10):1157-63
pubmed: 20870864
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2016 Dec;21(4):339-344
pubmed: 27477441
Ann Neurol. 1995 Nov;38(5):809-16
pubmed: 7486873
Ir J Med Sci. 2016 Feb;185(1):11-5
pubmed: 26443749
Neuroepidemiology. 2012;39(2):109-15
pubmed: 22846726
Expert Rev Neurother. 2009 Jun;9(6):869-84
pubmed: 19496690
Int J Rehabil Res. 2021 Mar 1;44(1):57-64
pubmed: 32909990
Neurology. 2011 Mar 15;76(11):968-75
pubmed: 21403108
Crit Care Med. 2003 Jan;31(1):278-83
pubmed: 12545029
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2017 Dec;22(4):433-439
pubmed: 28833828
Neurologia (Engl Ed). 2021 May 29;:
pubmed: 34074564
Cureus. 2020 Dec 15;12(12):e12101
pubmed: 33489518
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2019 Jun;24(2):168-173
pubmed: 31001904
Neurology. 2003 Apr 8;60(7):1146-50
pubmed: 12682322
Ann Neurol. 1998 Nov;44(5):780-8
pubmed: 9818934
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Oct;94(43):e1898
pubmed: 26512609
Neurol Sci. 2020 Feb;41(2):321-327
pubmed: 31586288
J Neurol Sci. 2008 Jan 15;264(1-2):121-8
pubmed: 17881005
Semin Neurol. 2003 Mar;23(1):97-104
pubmed: 12870111
Lancet. 2016 Aug 13;388(10045):717-27
pubmed: 26948435
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2019 Jan 07;6(2):324-332
pubmed: 30847364
Muscle Nerve. 1989 Jun;12(6):435-51
pubmed: 2657418
Neurol Res. 2022 Jun;44(6):534-543
pubmed: 35168471
Neurol India. 2012 Mar-Apr;60(2):150-3
pubmed: 22626694
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 22;10(7):e0133520
pubmed: 26200903
Health Expect. 2022 Feb;25(1):223-231
pubmed: 34597442
Ann Neurol. 1990;27 Suppl:S21-4
pubmed: 2194422
NeuroRehabilitation. 2021;48(4):543-551
pubmed: 34024788
Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Apr;124(4):821-2
pubmed: 22981651
J Neurol Sci. 2013 Dec 15;335(1-2):105-11
pubmed: 24064258
J Clin Neurosci. 2021 Oct;92:131-135
pubmed: 34509240
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 5;:
pubmed: 33154183
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 2;11(1):11578
pubmed: 34079013