4.6 Review

The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barre syndrome subtypes: Where do we stand?

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue 12, Pages 2586-2593

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025

Keywords

Guillain-Barre syndrome; Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy; Axonal Guillain-Barre syndrome; Serial electrophysiological studies; Reversible conduction failure; Electrodiagnostic criteria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is controversial as to whether the electrophysiological Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) subtypes can be diagnosed on the basis of a single study and which criteria sets and cut-offs should be used. Serial electrophysiologic studies have shown that a significant number of patients changed electrodiagnostic subtype largely because of the recognition of reversible conduction failure as a possible evidence of axonal pathology. However, other reports concluded that electrodiagnosis can be made by a single study, the subtypes depending on the characteristic of the criteria set applied. Such divergent views, although explicable by the different methodology employed, can be confusing in the everyday practice. We argue that the pathophysiology of GBS is dynamic and that serial studies allow a more accurate diagnosis of subtypes. A second study, although not always practicable, is recommended in patients showing no clear demyelinating features, low amplitude distal compound muscle action potentials or conduction block without temporal dispersion. For practical purposes, we propose that at a first study Uncini's or Rajabally's criteria sets can be employed for an indicative subtype diagnosis. Finally, although the GBS subtype diagnosis has currently no impact on treatment, we believe that is important for understanding the underlying pathophysiology and prognostication. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available