Revista de neurologia · 2022
[Clinical and neurophysiological patterns of early presenting symptoms in acute onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Escamilla-Ramírez A, López-Hernández J C, Díaz-Martínez R, Galnares-Olalde J, Vargas-Cañas E S
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The phenotypes of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) include an acute-onset phenotype (A-CIDP) with an evolution time of less than eight weeks from the onset of symptoms. This entity can be confused with Guillain-Barre syndrome of the acute inflammatory demyelinating variety (AIDP), delaying the start of treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and electrophysiological differences between A-CIDP, classic CIDP and AIDP, in order to identify factors that may help in the early differential diagnosis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out with patients seen at the neuromuscular disease clinic of the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery with a diagnosis of CIDP according to the criteria of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and Peripheral Nerve Society. Patients with CIDP <8 weeks were categorized as A-CIDP and were compared with patients diagnosed with classic CIDP and AIDP. Clinical, paraclinical and electrophysiological variables were obtained and analyzed.
RESULTS: Significant differences in history of infection, cranial nerve involvement and dysautonomia were observed between A-CIDP and AIDP. Electrophysiological recordings reported significant differences in motor nerve conduction velocity and sural nerve recordings, being lower in the A-CIDP group.
CONCLUSION: A history of infection, cranial nerve involvement and dysautonomia are important parameters to take into account for the differential diagnosis of these entities. Electrophysiological analysis is similar between A-CIDP and CIDP. The differential diagnosis between these types of demyelinating polyneuropathy must be based on clinical assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and electrophysiological differences between A-CIDP, classic CIDP and AIDP, in order to identify factors that may help in the early differential diagnosis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out with patients seen at the neuromuscular disease clinic of the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery with a diagnosis of CIDP according to the criteria of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and Peripheral Nerve Society. Patients with CIDP <8 weeks were categorized as A-CIDP and were compared with patients diagnosed with classic CIDP and AIDP. Clinical, paraclinical and electrophysiological variables were obtained and analyzed.
RESULTS: Significant differences in history of infection, cranial nerve involvement and dysautonomia were observed between A-CIDP and AIDP. Electrophysiological recordings reported significant differences in motor nerve conduction velocity and sural nerve recordings, being lower in the A-CIDP group.
CONCLUSION: A history of infection, cranial nerve involvement and dysautonomia are important parameters to take into account for the differential diagnosis of these entities. Electrophysiological analysis is similar between A-CIDP and CIDP. The differential diagnosis between these types of demyelinating polyneuropathy must be based on clinical assessment.