Neurology · 2015
Motor evoked potential polyphasia: a novel endophenotype of idiopathic generalized epilepsy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Chowdhury Fahmida A, Pawley Adam D, Ceronie Bryan, Nashef Lina, Elwes Robert D C, Richardson Mark P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We compared the motor evoked potential (MEP) phases using transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), their relatives, and healthy controls, hypothesizing that patients and their unaffected relatives may share a subtle pathophysiologic abnormality.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we investigated 23 patients with IGE, 34 first-degree relatives, and 30 matched healthy controls. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was performed to produce a series of suprathreshold single-pulse MEPs. A semiautomated method was used to count phases. We compared between groups the mean number of MEP phases, the stimulus-to-stimulus variability in MEP phases, and the proportion of polyphasic MEPs within subjects.
RESULTS: Patients with IGE and their relatives had a significantly increased number of MEP phases (median for patients 2.24, relatives 2.17, controls 2.01) and a significantly higher proportion of MEPs with more than 2 phases than controls (median for patients 0.118, relatives 0.088, controls 0.013). Patients had a greater stimulus-to-stimulus variability in number of MEP phases than controls. There were no differences between patients and relatives.
CONCLUSION: Increased MEP polyphasia in patients with IGE and their first-degree relatives may reflect transient abnormal evoked oscillations. The presence of polyphasic MEPs in relatives as well as patients suggests that MEP polyphasia is not related to treatment, and is in isolation insufficient to predispose to epilepsy. Polyphasic MEP may be a novel endophenotype in IGE.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we investigated 23 patients with IGE, 34 first-degree relatives, and 30 matched healthy controls. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was performed to produce a series of suprathreshold single-pulse MEPs. A semiautomated method was used to count phases. We compared between groups the mean number of MEP phases, the stimulus-to-stimulus variability in MEP phases, and the proportion of polyphasic MEPs within subjects.
RESULTS: Patients with IGE and their relatives had a significantly increased number of MEP phases (median for patients 2.24, relatives 2.17, controls 2.01) and a significantly higher proportion of MEPs with more than 2 phases than controls (median for patients 0.118, relatives 0.088, controls 0.013). Patients had a greater stimulus-to-stimulus variability in number of MEP phases than controls. There were no differences between patients and relatives.
CONCLUSION: Increased MEP polyphasia in patients with IGE and their first-degree relatives may reflect transient abnormal evoked oscillations. The presence of polyphasic MEPs in relatives as well as patients suggests that MEP polyphasia is not related to treatment, and is in isolation insufficient to predispose to epilepsy. Polyphasic MEP may be a novel endophenotype in IGE.