The Diagnostic Sensitivity for Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow Is Not Increased by Addition of Needle EMG of ADM and FDI When Nerve Conduction Studies Are Normal

Introduction: The main objective of this study was to investigate whether electromyography (EMG) has additional value in the confirmation of the clinical diagnosis of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow (UNE) if nerve conduction studies (NCS) are normal.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional cohort observational study was conducted among patients with the clinical suspicion of UNE. A total of 199 arms were included, who were examined according to a standard neurophysiological protocol, i.e., NCS and EMG relevant to the ulnar nerve.Results: NCS were normal in 76 (38.2%) arms. No abnormal spontaneous muscle fiber activity was found with EMG in any of these cases. In 9 arms with normal NCS (11.8%), isolated abnormal MUAP configurations were found with EMG. Of these nine arms one UNE was diagnosed clinically, in which additional ultrasound and repeated NCS/EMG were negative. One had already been diagnosed with neuralgic amyotrophy and one with CTS. The other 6 arms had additional diagnostics which did not reveal an UNE.Conclusion: EMG as part of the standard neurophysiological protocol exclusively in the confirmation of the clinical diagnosis of UNE has limited added value if NCS are normal in a high prior-odds setting. However, removing EMG may prevent detecting concomitant and/or additional differential diagnoses

Translating Evidence to Advanced Parkinson's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In the advanced stages of Parkinson's disease (PD), patients frequently experience disabling motor complications. Treatment options include deep brain stimulation (DBS), levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), and continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAI). Choosing among these treatments is influenced by scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences. To foster patient engagement in decision-making among the options, scientific evidence should be adjusted to their information needs. We conducted a systematic review from the patient perspective. First, patients selected outcomes for a treatment choice: quality of life, activities of daily living, ON and OFF time, and adverse events. Second, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for each treatment versus best medical treatment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Finally, the evidence was transformed into comprehensible and comparable information. We converted the meta-analysis results into the number of patients (per 100) who benefit clinically from an advanced treatment per outcome, based on the minimal clinically important difference and the cumulative distribution function. Although this approach allows for a comparison of outcomes across the three device-aided therapies, they have never been compared directly. The interpretation is hindered by the relatively short follow-up time in the included studies, usually less than 12 months. These limitations should be clarified to patients during the decision-making process. This review can help patients integrate the evidence with their own preferences, and with their clinician's expertise, to reach an informed decision

Treating Rhythmic and Periodic EEG Patterns in Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND: Whether the treatment of rhythmic and periodic electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest improves outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an open-label trial of suppressing rhythmic and periodic EEG patterns detected on continuous EEG monitoring in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a stepwise strategy of antiseizure medications to suppress this activity for at least 48 consecutive hours plus standard care (antiseizure-treatment group) or to standard care alone (control group); standard care included targeted temperature management in both groups. The primary outcome was neurologic outcome according to the score on the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale at 3 months, dichotomized as a good outcome (CPC score indicating no, mild, or moderate disability) or a poor outcome (CPC score indicating severe disability, coma, or death). Secondary outcomes were mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: We enrolled 172 patients, with 88 assigned to the antiseizure-treatment group and 84 to the control group. Rhythmic or periodic EEG activity was detected a median of 35 hours after cardiac arrest; 98 of 157 patients (62%) with available data had myoclonus. Complete suppression of rhythmic and periodic EEG activity for 48 consecutive hours occurred in 49 of 88 patients (56%) in the antiseizure-treatment group and in 2 of 83 patients (2%) in the control group. At 3 months, 79 of 88 patients (90%) in the antiseizure-treatment group and 77 of 84 patients (92%) in the control group had a poor outcome (difference, 2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -7 to 11; P = 0.68). Mortality at 3 months was 80% in the antiseizure-treatment group and 82% in the control group. The mean length of stay in the ICU and mean duration of mechanical ventilation were slightly longer in the antiseizure-treatment group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In comatose survivors of cardiac arrest, the incidence of a poor neurologic outcome at 3 months did not differ significantly between a strategy of suppressing rhythmic and periodic EEG activity with the use of antiseizure medication for at least 48 hours plus standard care and standard care alone. (Funded by the Dutch Epilepsy Foundation; TELSTAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02056236.)