4.6 Article

Repetitive nerve stimulation often fails to detect abnormal decrement in acute severe generalized Myasthenia Gravis

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 127, 期 11, 页码 3480-3484

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2016.09.012

关键词

Myasthenia gravis; Decrement; Repetitive nerve stimulation; CNE jitter

资金

  1. Swedish Society of Medicine [SLS-330141]
  2. Uppsala Lans Landsting [LUL-350891]
  3. Neuroforbundet (NEURO Sweden)
  4. Swedish Institute [19680/2014]
  5. Swedish Research Council [VR-523-2014-2048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We assessed the diagnostic pattern of repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS) test and concentric electrode (CNE) jitter analysis between patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (GMG) with acute versus slow onset. Methods: All examinations that established the diagnosis of GMG at the department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Uppsala University Hospital, were retrospectively analyzed from January 2012 to December 2014. Patients were grouped according to disease duration at neurophysiological evaluation: acute onset (< 4 weeks) or slow onset (>= 4 weeks). Results: We identified 41 patients diagnosed with GMG. Of the nine patients with acute onset GMG (5 women) only one patient had abnormal decrement, whereas of the 32 patients with slow onset (13 women) 26 patients (84%) had abnormal decrement. CNE jitter was abnormal in all. AChR antibody status was comparable (78% versus 84%) whereas the MGFA class was higher in the acute onset group (range: 3A-5) compared to the slow onset group (range: 2A-3B). Conclusions: RNS test is frequently normal in cases of acute severe GMG, including myasthenic crisis. Performing CNE jitter analysis is therefore of crucial importance for a correct early diagnosis. Significance: MG patients with acute severe onset of bulbar or generalized fatigue often have normal findings on RNS test in proximal muscles. (C) 2016 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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