METHODS: Prospectively collected clinical and EDx data were available in 957 IGOS patients from 115 centers. Only the first EDx study was included in the current analysis.
RESULTS: Median timing of the EDx study was 7 days (interquartile range 4-11) from symptom onset. Methodology varied between centers, countries and regions. Reference values from the responding 103 centers were derived locally in 49%, from publications in 37% and from a combination of these in the remaining 15%. Amplitude measurement in the EDx studies (baseline-to-peak or peak-to-peak) differed from the way this was done in the reference values, in 22% of motor and 39% of sensory conduction. There was marked variability in both motor and sensory reference values, although only a few outliers accounted for this.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed extensive variation in the clinical practice of EDx in GBS patients among IGOS centers across the regions.
SIGNIFICANCE: Besides EDx variation in GBS patients participating in IGOS, this diversity is likely to be present in other neuromuscular disorders and centers. This underlines the need for standardization of EDx in future multinational GBS studies.
METHODS: The reference electrodiagnosis was obtained in 53 demyelinating and 45 axonal GBS patients on the basis of two serial studies and results of anti-ganglioside antibodies assay. We retrospectively employed sparse linear discriminant analysis (LDA), two existing electrodiagnostic criteria sets (Hadden et al., 1998; Rajabally et al., 2015) and one we propose that additionally evaluates duration of motor responses, sural sparing pattern and defines reversible conduction failure (RCF) in motor and sensory nerves at second study.
RESULTS: At first study the misclassification error rates, compared to reference diagnoses, were: 15.3% for sparse LDA, 30% for our criteria, 45% for Rajabally's and 48% for Hadden's. Sparse LDA identified seven most powerful electrophysiological variables differentiating demyelinating and axonal subtypes and assigned to each patient the diagnostic probability of belonging to either subtype. At second study 46.6% of axonal GBS patients showed RCF in two motor and 8.8% in two sensory nerves.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a single study, sparse LDA showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. RCF is present in a considerable percentage of axonal patients.
SIGNIFICANCE: Sparse LDA, a supervised statistical method of classification, should be introduced in the electrodiagnostic practice.
METHODS: Consecutive GBS and MFS patients presenting to our center between 2010 and 2020 were analyzed. The clinical characteristics, electrophysiological data, and antiganglioside antibody profiles of the patients were utilized in determining the clinical classification.
RESULTS: This study classified 132 patients with GBS and its related disorders according to the new classification criteria as follows: 64 (48.5%) as classic GBS, 2 (1.5%) as pharyngeal-cervical-brachial (PCB) variant, 7 (5.3%) as paraparetic GBS, 29 (22%) as classic MFS, 3 (2.3%) as acute ophthalmoparesis, 2 (1.5%) as acute ataxic neuropathy, 2 (1.5%) as Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis (BBE), 17 (12.9%) as GBS/MFS overlap, 4 (3%) as GBS/BBE overlap, 1 (0.8%) as MFS/PCB overlap, and 1 (0.8%) as polyneuritis cranialis. The electrodiagnosis was demyelinating in 55% of classic GBS patients but unclassified in 79% of classic MFS patients. Anti-GM1, anti-GD1a, anti-GalNAc-GD1a, and anti-GD1b IgG ganglioside antibodies were more commonly detected in the axonal GBS subtype, whereas the anti-GQ1b and anti-GT1a IgG ganglioside antibodies were more common in classic MFS and its subtypes.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients in the present cohort met the criteria of either classic GBS or MFS, but variants were seen in one-third of patients. These findings support the need to recognize variants of both syndromes in order to achieve a more-complete case ascertainment in GBS.
METHODS: Serial nerve conduction studies (NCS) were retrospectively analyzed in 82 GBS patients from 3 centers. The criteria for the presence of ERCF in a nerve were: (i) a 50% increase in amplitude of distal compound muscle action potentials or sensory nerve action potentials; or (ii) resolution of proximal motor conduction block with an accompanying decrease in distal latencies or compound muscle action potential duration or increase in conduction velocities.
RESULTS: Of 82 patients from 3 centers, 37 (45%) had ERCF, 21 (26%) had a contrasting evolution pattern, and 8 (10%) had both. Sixteen patients did not show an amplitude increase of at least 50%.
CONCLUSION: Our proposed criteria identified a group of patients with a characteristic evolution of NCS abnormality that is consistent with ERCF. Muscle Nerve 56: 919-924, 2017.