3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Pattern reversal visual evoked potentials as a measure of visual pathway pathology in multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 529-534

出版社

ARNOLD, HODDER HEADLINE PLC
DOI: 10.1191/1352458503ms935rr

关键词

multiple sclerosis; pattern reversal visual evoked potentials; visual acuity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (PRVEPs) have a well-documented role in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis ( MS), but their value as a visual function surrogate remains controversial. Methods: We evaluated PRVEP in 37 patients with MS who were participating in a long-term follow-up study following a phase III trial of interferon beta-1a (Avonex(R)). Patients were examined to determine the Kurtzke Extended Disability Status Score (EDSS), multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC), contrast letter acuity (CLA), and had cranial MRI scans to determine whole brain atrophy (BPF). PRVEP was evaluated for P100 latency, amplitude, and waveform morphology. Two summary scores were created: for Score A, abnormal latencies, morphologies, and amplitudes of each individual eye were added; for Score B, abnormal latencies, morphologies, and amplitude ratio between eyes was determined. Sixteen patients in this group also had PRVEP at the time they enrolled in the clinical trial, eight years previously. Results: At the follow-up exam, over 75% of patients had abnormal PVEP parameters while visual acuity (VA) was abnormal only in 59%. Increased PRVEP latency over the eight-year period correlated with deterioration assessed by EDSS ( P = 0.006), BPF ( P = 0.0001), and MSFC ( P = 0.0041). Score A was significantly correlated with EDSS, BPF, C LA, cognitive function, and quality of life assessed with the Sickness Impact profile. No correlation was seen with the MSFC. Conclusions: The results indicate that PRVEP measures MS-related pathology, and can pro vide not only diagnostic but also prognostic information during evaluation of MS patients.

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

3.8
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