4.5 Article

The value of comparing mortality of Guillain-Barre syndrome across different regions

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 344, Issue 1-2, Pages 60-62

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.06.021

Keywords

Guillain-Barre syndrome; Neuropathy; Mortality; Prognosis; Predictors; Asian

Funding

  1. University of Malaya [RG491/13HTM]
  2. Singapore National Medical Research Council [IRG 10nov086, CSA/047/2012]
  3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine [R-172-000-264-733]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To study the clinical profile of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) patients who died in 4 Asian countries in order to understand factors underlying any variation in mortality. Methods: Retrospectively reviewed medical records of GBS patients who died in 7 hospitals from 4 Asian countries between 2001 and 2012. Baseline characteristics, timing and causes of death were recorded. Results: A total oil out of 261 GBS patients died. The overall mortality rate was 6%, with a range of 0 to 13%. The leading causes of death were respiratory infections, followed by myocardial infarction. The median age of our patients was 77 years. Half of the patients required mechanical ventilation and almost all had significant concomitant illnesses. A disproportionate number of patients in the Hong Kong cohort died (13%). Patients with advanced age, fewer antecedent respiratory infections and need for mechanical ventilation were at most risk. Most deaths occurred during the plateau phase of GBS and on the general ward after having initially received intensive care. Conclusions: There is considerable variability in mortality of GBS among different Asian cohorts. Although the risks factors for mortality were similar to Western cohorts, the timing and site of death differed. This allows specific measures to be implemented to improve GBS care in countries with higher mortality. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available