4.6 Article

Spectrum of hypokalaemic periodic paralysis in a tertiary care centre in India

期刊

POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 86, 期 1022, 页码 692-695

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2010.104026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Acute flaccid paralysis is a common neurological emergency with diverse causes and variable outcome. There is a paucity of reports documenting the spectrum of hypokalaemic paralysis in neurological practice. Objective To report the clinical features, aetiology, and outcome of patients with hypokalaemic paralysis in a tertiary care teaching hospital in India. Methods Consecutive patients with acute flaccid paralysis with hypokalaemia from 2008 to 2010 were included in the study. Patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome, porphyria, polio and non-polio enterovirus infection and myositis were excluded. Detailed clinical examination, urinalysis, renal function tests, arterial blood gas analysis, thyroid hormones, and electrocardiogram were carried out. Patients received intravenous or oral potassium supplementation and their underlying causes were treated. Results Thirty patients aged 17-52 years, including three females, were included. Secondary causes of hypokalaemic paralysis were present in 13 patients and included thyrotoxic paralysis in five and renal tubular acidosis (RTA) and Gitelman syndrome in four each. All the patients had quadriparesis and 10 had severe weakness (MRC grade < 2). Tendon reflexes were reduced in eight and brisk in four patients. Respiratory paralysis was present in six patients and one needed artificial ventilation. Fifteen patients had severe hypokalaemia (< 2 mmol/l), four had acidosis, and six had alkalosis. The secondary group had more severe hypokalaemia and needed longer time to recover. Conclusion 43.3% of patients with hypokalaemic paralysis had a secondary cause for their condition. Patients with severe hypokalaemia with acidosis or alkalosis should be investigated for secondary causes as their management differ.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据