HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correspondence: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Correspondence are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hiraga, A. Articles by Kuwabara, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hiraga, A. Articles by Kuwabara, S. Related Collections All Immunology Peripheral neuropathy Guillain-Barre syndrome

Differences in patterns of progression in demyelinating and axonal Guillain–Barré syndromes

From the Department of Neurology, Chiba University School of Medicine, Japan.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Akiyuki Hiraga, Department of Neurology, Chiba University School of Medicine, 1-8-1, Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8670, Japan; e-mail: hiragaa{at}mail3.alpha-net.ne.jp

Background: Immune treatments are recommended for patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) who cannot walk independently, but a considerable number of GBS patients are in the progressive phase at the first examination.

Objective: To investigate whether progression patterns differ in demyelinating and axonal subtypes of GBS.

Methods: Clinical, laboratory, and electrophysiologic data on 131 consecutive patients with GBS were reviewed. Patients were classified as having acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) or acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) based on electrodiagnostic criteria.

Results: Forty-one patients had AIDP, 62 AMAN, and 28 were unclassified. Age, sex, and Hughes Functional Grading Scale score at the first medical examination did not differ for the AIDP and AMAN patients. Mean periods between neurologic onset and first examination (5.3 vs 4.2 days; p = 0.01) and neurologic onset and nadir (18.0 vs 11.5 days; p = 0.001) were longer for the AIDP group. In the subgroup of those with mild disability (able to walk independently at the first neurologic examination), 88% of the AMAN patients had reached the nadir, whereas 65% of the AIDP patients had reached it. The remaining 35% progressed to it over the next 1 to 2 weeks and were unable to walk at nadir.

Conclusions: The patterns and speeds of progression differ in AMAN and AIDP, AMAN having a rapid progression and an early nadir. AIDP patients frequently have a significantly long progression after the first examination; therefore, they need to be carefully monitored.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Alshekhlee, Z. Hussain, B. Sultan, and B. Katirji Guillain-Barre syndrome: Incidence and mortality rates in US hospitals Neurology, April 29, 2008; 70(18): 1608 - 1613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]