Brain and Behavior (Oct 2024)

The Initial Clinical and Electrophysiological Characteristics of Different Subtypes of Guillain–Barré Syndrome Diagnosed Based on Serial Electrophysiological Examinations

  • Shuo Yang,
  • Na Chen,
  • Lei Zhang,
  • Ying Wang,
  • Lin Chen,
  • Fan Jian,
  • Zaiqiang Zhang,
  • Yilong Wang,
  • Hua Pan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70068
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 10
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background We aimed to identify different Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) subtypes, demyelination, axonal degeneration, and reversible conduction failure (RCF) as early as possible by analyzing the initial clinical and electrophysiological examinations. Methods This study retrospectively collected GBS patients between October 2018 and December 2022 at Beijing Tiantan Hospital. The diagnostic criteria for the initial electrophysiological study were based on Rajabally's criteria, and the criteria for the serial electrophysiological study were based on Uncini's criteria. All subjects underwent clinical and electrophysiological evaluations at least twice within 8 weeks. Results A total of 47 eligible patients with GBS were included, comprising 19 acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (AIDP), 18 axonal degenerations, and 10 RCFs. In the RCF group, 40%, 30%, and 30% patients were diagnosed as AIDP, axonal, and equivocal at the initial study, respectively. The AIDP group had significantly higher cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein than the RCF (123.8 [106.4, 215.1] mg/dL vs. 67.1 [36.8, 85.6] mg/dL, p = 0.002) and axonal degeneration (123.8 [106.4, 215.1] mg/dL vs. 60.8 [34.8, 113.0] mg/dL, p < 0.001) groups. The RCF group had significantly lower Hughes functional grades at admission (3 [2, 4] vs. 4 [4, 4], p = 0.012) and discharge (1.0 [1.0, 2.0] vs. 3.0 [2.0, 3.0], p < 0.001) than the axonal degeneration group and showed significantly shorter distal motor latency (DML), Fmin, Fmean, Fmax, and lower F% than the AIDP group (p < 0.05). Discussion The early identification of RCF from AIDP had relatively obvious features, including slightly elevated CSF protein levels and normal or slightly prolonged DML and F‐wave latencies, contrasting with the apparent elevation and prolongation seen in AIDP. Differentiating RCF from axonal degeneration remains challenging. One potential distinguishing factor is that the motor function in RCF tends to be better than in the latter.

Keywords