Pathophysiology inferred from electrodiagnostic nerve tests and classification of polyneuropathies. Suggested guidelines

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2005.04.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To present criteria for pathophysiological interpretation of motor and sensory nerve conduction studies and for pathophysiological classification of polyneuropathies suggested by a group of European neurophysiologists.

Methods

Since 1992 seven neurophysiologists from six European countries have collected random samples of their electrodiagnostic examinations for peer review medical audit in the ESTEEM (European Standardized Telematic tool to Evaluate Electrodiagnostic Methods) project. Based on existing criteria in the literature, the experience with a patient material of 572 peer reviewed electrodiagnostic examinations, and productive discussions between the physicians at workshops, the collaboration has produced a set of criteria now routinely used at the centres involved in the project.

Results

The first part of the paper considers pathophysiology of individual nerve segments. For interpretation of motor and sensory nerve conduction studies, figures showing change in amplitude versus change in conduction velocity/distal latency and change in F-wave frequency versus change in F-wave latency are presented. The suggested boundaries delimit areas corresponding to normal, axonal, demyelinated, or neuropathic nerve segments. Criteria for motor conduction block in upper and lower extremities are schematically depicted using the parameters CMAP amplitude and CMAP duration. The second part of the paper suggests criteria for classification of polyneuropathies into axonal, demyelinating, or mixed using the above-mentioned criteria.

Conclusions

The suggested criteria are developed during many years of collaboration of different centres and may be useful for standardization in clinical neurophysiology.

Significance

Consistent interpretation of nerve conduction studies is an important step in optimising diagnosis and treatment of nerve disorders.

Introduction

The distinction between axonal loss and demyelination is one of the main goals of the examination of a polyneuropathy (PNP) due to its important implications for diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. For instance, differentiation of axonal and demyelinating pathophysiologies is a major determinant for the effective choice of therapy in the case of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (AIDP), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) or multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). Nerve biopsy findings may be the most accurate means of classifying nerve abnormalities, however, in biopsies changes may be overlooked whenever the abnormalities are patchy or restricted to motor nerves. Besides, nerve biopsy is an invasive and inconvenient procedure that cannot be applied for follow-up studies. Nerve conduction studies (NCS) are therefore essential for determining the pathophysiology of peripheral nerves. In NCS primary demyelination is indicated by marked reduction in motor or sensory conduction velocity (CV), conduction block or increased temporal dispersion, whereas primary axonal loss may be indicated by a decrease in amplitude or area of the sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) or the compound muscle action potential (CMAP). However, electrophysiological differentiation between demyelination and axonal loss can be a challenging task as increased temporal dispersion or distal conduction block due to demyelination may result in amplitude reduction, and in axonal neuropathy loss of large fast conducting fibres may cause conduction slowing. Moreover, the pathophysiology is sometimes difficult to interpret with secondary demyelination in primary axonal neuropathy and vice versa (Johnsen and Fuglsang-Frederiksen, 2000). Additionally, other pathophysiologies should be kept in mind, e.g. channelopathies may lead to conduction slowing or failure via functional disturbances of ion-channels at the nodal areas (Gutmann and Gutmann, 1996, Kaji, 2003, Yokota et al., 1994).

For the past 12 years a European group of neurophysiologists have collected samples of their patient examinations for peer review medical audit through the Internet and at regular workshops in the multicentre project ESTEEM (European Standardized Telematic tool to Evaluate Electrodiagnostic Methods) (Fuglsang-Frederiksen et al., 1996, Vingtoft et al., 1994, Vingtoft et al., 1995). During the years, the group has established its own sets of electrophysiological criteria for pathophysiological interpretation of individual nerve tests and for PNP classification, based on existing criteria in the literature (Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology AIDS Task Force, 1991, Albers, 1993, Albers and Kelly, 1989, Albers et al., 1985, Asbury and Cornblath, 1990, Barohn et al., 1989, Behse and Buchthal, 1977, Bouche et al., 1983, Bromberg, 1991, Buchthal and Behse, 1977, Gherardi et al., 1983, Gilliatt, 1966, Hadden et al., 1998, Harding and Thomas, 1980, Ho et al., 1997, Hughes et al., 2001, Italian Guillain-Barré Study Group, 1996, Meulstee et al.,1995, Nicolas et al., 2002, Saperstein et al., 2001, Van den Bergh and Pieret, 2004, Van der Meche et al., 2001), the experience with a patient material of 572 peer reviewed electrodiagnostic examinations, and productive discussions between the physicians at workshops. The criteria have proved useful in daily practice at the participating laboratories and the group believe that they should now be presented to the international neurophysiological community.

Section snippets

Data structure

Since 1992, seven physicians from six European countries have prospectively collected random samples of their patient examinations into a database, which now contains 1401 cases including 350 PNP cases. A common data structure implemented in a PC program (Johnsen et al., 1994b) is used to collect, exchange, and compare the heterogeneous data originating from the different laboratories in electronic form. The data structure is, in accordance with the electrophysiological examination, composed of

Sensory nerve conduction studies

The suggested limits are presented in Fig. 1. Normal studies have changes ≤±2 SD from mean of controls. The limits for probable demyelination are >4.5 SD decrease in CV, while definite demyelination requires >5.5 SD decrease in CV. Criteria for axonal loss are met when the decrease in SNAP amplitude is >2.5 SD and the CV is normal or slightly decreased (≤2.5 SD). Studies not fulfilling the above criteria are considered neuropathic.

CMAP amplitude versus distal motor latency

The suggested limits for motor conduction studies evaluated by

Discussion

The ESTEEM project has since 1992 been active as an international collaboration of peers. The physicians in the project are from different European countries and fundamental differences in training and tradition exist among the physicians. Therefore, some of the challenges in the project were to obtain agreement on a common terminology for electrophysiological definitions and to develop consistent interpretations of electrodiagnostic tests. This work has led to the present suggestions for

Conclusions

The criteria presented here result from seven neurophysiologists' several years of systematic review of patient cases from six different European electrodiagnostic laboratories. The physicians involved in the project use the criteria routinely and find them practical and useful and believe that they may also be helpful to other neurophysiologists.

Use of well-defined criteria assures consistent interpretations of electrophysiological tests and improves the quality of the neurophysiological

References (56)

  • K. Pugdahl et al.

    Influence of medical audit on electrodiagnostic evaluation of polyneuropathy. A multicentre study

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2005)
  • E. Stalberg et al.

    A personal computer based system used in electromyography for interpretation and reporting

    Comput Methods Programs Biomed

    (1991)
  • H. Tankisi et al.

    Variation in the classification of polyneuropathies among European physicians

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2003)
  • S. Vingtoft et al.

    ESTEEM (European standardised telematic tool to evaluate EMG knowledge-based systems and methods):AIM project A2010

    Comput Methods Programs Biomed

    (1994)
  • T. Yokota et al.

    Conduction slowing without conduction block of compound muscle and nerve action potentials due to sodium channel block

    J Neurol Sci

    (1994)
  • Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology AIDS Task Force

    Research criteria for diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)

    Neurology

    (1991)
  • J.W. Albers

    Clinical neurophysiology of generalized polyneuropathy

    J Clin Neurophysiol

    (1993)
  • J.W. Albers et al.

    Acquired inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies: clinical and electrodiagnostic features

    Muscle Nerve

    (1989)
  • J.W. Albers et al.

    Sequential electrodiagnostic abnormalities in acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

    Muscle Nerve

    (1985)
  • American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine

    Guidelines in electrodiagnostic medicine

    Muscle Nerve

    (1992)
  • A.K. Asbury et al.

    Assessment of current diagnostic criteria for Guillain-Barré syndrome

    Ann Neurol

    (1990)
  • R.J. Barohn et al.

    Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Clinical characteristics, course, and recommendations for diagnostic criteria

    Arch Neurol

    (1989)
  • F. Behse et al.

    Peroneal muscular atrophy (PMA) and related disorders. II. Histological findings in sural nerves

    Brain

    (1977)
  • M.B. Bromberg

    Comparison of electrodiagnostic criteria for primary demyelination in chronic polyneuropathy

    Muscle Nerve

    (1991)
  • F. Buchthal et al.

    Peroneal muscular atrophy (PMA) and related disorders. I. Clinical manifestations as related to biopsy findings, nerve conduction and electromyography

    Brain

    (1977)
  • W.W. Campbell et al.

    Deriving reference values in electrodiagnostic medicine

    Muscle Nerve

    (1993)
  • P.D. Donofrio et al.

    AAEM minimonograph #34: polyneuropathy: classification by nerve conduction studies and electromyography

    Muscle Nerve

    (1990)
  • T.E. Feasby et al.

    The pathological basis of conduction block in human neuropathies

    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

    (1985)
  • Cited by (108)

    • Preclinical nerve conduction: Nerve battery options for primate studies

      2022, Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods
    • Myopathic changes in patients with long-term fatigue after COVID-19

      2021, Clinical Neurophysiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Peroneal, tibial and ulnar motor CVs, CMAP amplitudes and minimum F-wave latencies, and ulnar, sural and dorsal cutaneous sural sensory CVs and SNAP amplitudes, and qEMG results were compared between patients and healthy controls. Additionally, sensory and motor NCS results in patients were compared with laboratorýs larger control material and values outside 2SD were defined abnormal (Tankisi et al., 2005). Baseline characteristics and long-term symptoms were compared between patients with vs without myopathic changes using one sides Fishers exact test and Stata Intercooled version 11.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text