Electrodiagnostic methods to verify Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes in Istanbul: A prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to identify the clinical characteristics and electrodiagnostic subtypes of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in Istanbul. METHODS: Patients with GBS were prospectively recruited between April 2019 and March 2022 and two electrodiagnostic examinations were performed on each patient. The criteria of Ho et al., Hadden et al., Rajabally et al., and Uncini et al. were compared for the differentiation of demyelinating and axonal subtypes, and their relations with anti-ganglioside antibodies were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-seven patients were included, 69 before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (April 2019-February 2020) and 108 during the pandemic (March 2020-March 2022), without substantial changes in monthly frequencies. As compared with the criteria of Uncini et al., demyelinating GBS subtype diagnosis was more frequent according to the Ho et al. and Hadden et al. criteria (95/162, 58.6% vs. 110/174, 63.2% and 121/174, 69.5%, respectively), and less frequent according to Rajabally et al.'s criteria (76/174, 43.7%). Fourteen patients' diagnoses made using Rajabally et al.'s criteria were shifted to the other subtype with the second electrodiagnostic examination. Of the 106 analyzed patients, 22 had immunoglobulin G anti-ganglioside antibodies (14 with the axonal subtype). They had less frequent sensory symptoms (54.5% vs. 83.1%, p = 0.009), a more frequent history of previous gastroenteritis (54.5% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.007), and a more severe disease as compared with those without antibodies. INTERPRETATION: Serial electrodiagnostic examinations are more helpful for accurate subtype diagnosis of GBS because of the dynamic pathophysiology of the disease. We observed no significant increase in GBS frequency during the pandemic in this metropolis.

Contribution of brainstem circuits in pathophysiology of NREM-sleep parasomnias.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the brainstem circuits to reveal if there was any abnormality in these circuits in clinically diagnosed patients with NREM parasomnias during wakefulness. METHODS: Twelve patients with NREM-sleep parasomnia diagnosed according to ICSD-3 criteria and a control group of 16 healthy subjects were enrolled into our study. We analyzed the auditory startle reflex (ASR), blink reflex (BR), prepulse inhibition (PPI) of BR and recovery excitability of BR. RESULTS: There was a trend for longer responses from orbicularis oculi and sternocleidomastoid muscles after auditory stimulation in the patients compared to those in the healthy subjects. The recovery percentages at 200 ms and 300 ms showed a borderline significance in the patients. No significant difference was found in the R2-PPI between the patients and healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a mildly enhanced ASR and relatively early facilitation of BR excitability in patients with NREM-sleep parasomnia during daytime. Although our findings suggest involvement of brainstem networks in NREM-sleep parasomnia during wakefulness, it would be better to study these networks at night and during daytime to see if there is any contribution.

The role of pedunculopontine nucleus in isolated REM sleep behavior disorder and REM sleep without atonia.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyze the functions of pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) in isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) and REM sleep without atonia (RSWA) to investigate the role of PPN in dream-enacting motor behaviors in RBD. We evaluated the activity of PPN through the prepulse modulation (PPM) together with other brainstem reflexes to investigate the differences in changes at brainstem. METHODS: We included nine patients with isolated RSWA and 10 patients with iRBD. For diagnosis, all patients underwent polysomnography. None of the patients had parkinsonism or dementia. We also included 17 healthy participants with similar age and sex. Blink reflex (BR), PPM of BR, recovery excitability of BR, and auditory startle reflex (ASR) were recorded in all participants. RESULTS: There was a prepulse inhibition deficit in iRBD and RSWA groups compared to healthy subjects. The BR-R2 recovery at 200 ms interval was also higher in patients with iRBD and RSWA. In ASR recordings, the response probabilities were higher in the RBD group compared to RSWA and control groups. CONCLUSION: The PPM was abnormal in both iRBD and RSWA whereas ASR was enhanced in iRBD. We suggest that there are certain similarities and differences in the pathophysiologies of iRBD and RSWA.