Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain–Barré Syndrome
Background Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10–30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neurocritical care 2023-06, Vol.38 (3), p.564-583 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 583 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 564 |
container_title | Neurocritical care |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Busl, Katharina M. Fried, Herbert Muehlschlegel, Susanne Wartenberg, Katja E. Rajajee, Venkatakrishna Alexander, Sheila A. Creutzfeldt, Claire J. Fontaine, Gabriel V. Hocker, Sara E. Hwang, David Y. Kim, Keri S. Madzar, Dominik Mahanes, Dea Mainali, Shraddha Meixensberger, Juergen Sakowitz, Oliver W. Varelas, Panayiotis N. Westermaier, Thomas Weimar, Christian |
description | Background
Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10–30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates.
Methods
A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: “When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?” Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.
Results
Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10241707</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2919608195</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3a706f561c854054382b0c677a00dabb07d4c5c486824367d07a44b57e46fc933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtOHDEQhi0ECoTkAixQS2zYNJTf3SsEowQi8VgkWVtut3sw6rEHu5uIHXfgFJyDm-Qk8WQIr0VWZam--st__QhtYdjDAHI_YQKkKoHQErAEWdIVtIE5FyXUAq8u3gyXoqZ0HX1M6QqAyFryD2idilowxsgGOjseXWt7520quhCLczvGMI9h6kManNGDC75wvjhsx35IxS83XBZ5pO-187_v7o90jI8Pxfdb38Yws5_QWqf7ZD8_1U308-uXH5OT8vTi-Nvk8LQ0TPKhpFqC6LjApuIMOKMVacAIKTVAq5sGZMsMN6wSFWFUyBakZqzh0jLRmexnEx0sdedjM7OtsX6Iulfz6GY63qqgnXrb8e5STcONwkDY4lRZYfdJIYbr0aZBzVwyNvvyNoxJ5UthKjlgyOjOO_QqjNFnf4rUuBZQ4ZpniiwpE0NK0XbPv8GgFnGpZVwqx6X-xqUWPrZf-3ge-ZdPBugSSLnlpza-7P6P7B_u-KG4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2919608195</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain–Barré Syndrome</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Busl, Katharina M. ; Fried, Herbert ; Muehlschlegel, Susanne ; Wartenberg, Katja E. ; Rajajee, Venkatakrishna ; Alexander, Sheila A. ; Creutzfeldt, Claire J. ; Fontaine, Gabriel V. ; Hocker, Sara E. ; Hwang, David Y. ; Kim, Keri S. ; Madzar, Dominik ; Mahanes, Dea ; Mainali, Shraddha ; Meixensberger, Juergen ; Sakowitz, Oliver W. ; Varelas, Panayiotis N. ; Westermaier, Thomas ; Weimar, Christian</creator><creatorcontrib>Busl, Katharina M. ; Fried, Herbert ; Muehlschlegel, Susanne ; Wartenberg, Katja E. ; Rajajee, Venkatakrishna ; Alexander, Sheila A. ; Creutzfeldt, Claire J. ; Fontaine, Gabriel V. ; Hocker, Sara E. ; Hwang, David Y. ; Kim, Keri S. ; Madzar, Dominik ; Mahanes, Dea ; Mainali, Shraddha ; Meixensberger, Juergen ; Sakowitz, Oliver W. ; Varelas, Panayiotis N. ; Westermaier, Thomas ; Weimar, Christian</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10–30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates.
Methods
A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: “When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?” Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.
Results
Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete clinical condition as opposed to a single variable during prognostication.
Conclusions
These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of the need for mechanical ventilation, poor functional outcome, and independent ambulation following GBS in the context of counseling patients and/or surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence, and higher quality data are needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1541-6933</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-0961</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36964442</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Counseling ; Critical Care Medicine ; Guillain-Barre syndrome ; Guillain-Barre Syndrome - diagnosis ; Guillain-Barre Syndrome - therapy ; Humans ; Intensive ; Internal Medicine ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Mortality ; NCS Guidelines ; Neurology ; Neurosurgery ; Probability ; Prognosis ; Reproducibility of Results ; Respiration, Artificial ; Respiratory failure ; Respiratory Insufficiency ; Validation studies ; Variables ; Ventilators</subject><ispartof>Neurocritical care, 2023-06, Vol.38 (3), p.564-583</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023. corrected publication 2023</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. corrected publication 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3a706f561c854054382b0c677a00dabb07d4c5c486824367d07a44b57e46fc933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3a706f561c854054382b0c677a00dabb07d4c5c486824367d07a44b57e46fc933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2919608195?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,21367,27901,27902,33721,33722,41464,42533,43781,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36964442$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Busl, Katharina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fried, Herbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muehlschlegel, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wartenberg, Katja E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rajajee, Venkatakrishna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexander, Sheila A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Creutzfeldt, Claire J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fontaine, Gabriel V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hocker, Sara E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hwang, David Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Keri S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madzar, Dominik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahanes, Dea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mainali, Shraddha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meixensberger, Juergen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sakowitz, Oliver W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varelas, Panayiotis N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westermaier, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weimar, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain–Barré Syndrome</title><title>Neurocritical care</title><addtitle>Neurocrit Care</addtitle><addtitle>Neurocrit Care</addtitle><description>Background
Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10–30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates.
Methods
A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: “When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?” Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.
Results
Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete clinical condition as opposed to a single variable during prognostication.
Conclusions
These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of the need for mechanical ventilation, poor functional outcome, and independent ambulation following GBS in the context of counseling patients and/or surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence, and higher quality data are needed.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Counseling</subject><subject>Critical Care Medicine</subject><subject>Guillain-Barre syndrome</subject><subject>Guillain-Barre Syndrome - diagnosis</subject><subject>Guillain-Barre Syndrome - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>NCS Guidelines</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Respiration, Artificial</subject><subject>Respiratory failure</subject><subject>Respiratory Insufficiency</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Variables</subject><subject>Ventilators</subject><issn>1541-6933</issn><issn>1556-0961</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtOHDEQhi0ECoTkAixQS2zYNJTf3SsEowQi8VgkWVtut3sw6rEHu5uIHXfgFJyDm-Qk8WQIr0VWZam--st__QhtYdjDAHI_YQKkKoHQErAEWdIVtIE5FyXUAq8u3gyXoqZ0HX1M6QqAyFryD2idilowxsgGOjseXWt7520quhCLczvGMI9h6kManNGDC75wvjhsx35IxS83XBZ5pO-187_v7o90jI8Pxfdb38Yws5_QWqf7ZD8_1U308-uXH5OT8vTi-Nvk8LQ0TPKhpFqC6LjApuIMOKMVacAIKTVAq5sGZMsMN6wSFWFUyBakZqzh0jLRmexnEx0sdedjM7OtsX6Iulfz6GY63qqgnXrb8e5STcONwkDY4lRZYfdJIYbr0aZBzVwyNvvyNoxJ5UthKjlgyOjOO_QqjNFnf4rUuBZQ4ZpniiwpE0NK0XbPv8GgFnGpZVwqx6X-xqUWPrZf-3ge-ZdPBugSSLnlpza-7P6P7B_u-KG4</recordid><startdate>20230601</startdate><enddate>20230601</enddate><creator>Busl, Katharina M.</creator><creator>Fried, Herbert</creator><creator>Muehlschlegel, Susanne</creator><creator>Wartenberg, Katja E.</creator><creator>Rajajee, Venkatakrishna</creator><creator>Alexander, Sheila A.</creator><creator>Creutzfeldt, Claire J.</creator><creator>Fontaine, Gabriel V.</creator><creator>Hocker, Sara E.</creator><creator>Hwang, David Y.</creator><creator>Kim, Keri S.</creator><creator>Madzar, Dominik</creator><creator>Mahanes, Dea</creator><creator>Mainali, Shraddha</creator><creator>Meixensberger, Juergen</creator><creator>Sakowitz, Oliver W.</creator><creator>Varelas, Panayiotis N.</creator><creator>Westermaier, Thomas</creator><creator>Weimar, Christian</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230601</creationdate><title>Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain–Barré Syndrome</title><author>Busl, Katharina M. ; Fried, Herbert ; Muehlschlegel, Susanne ; Wartenberg, Katja E. ; Rajajee, Venkatakrishna ; Alexander, Sheila A. ; Creutzfeldt, Claire J. ; Fontaine, Gabriel V. ; Hocker, Sara E. ; Hwang, David Y. ; Kim, Keri S. ; Madzar, Dominik ; Mahanes, Dea ; Mainali, Shraddha ; Meixensberger, Juergen ; Sakowitz, Oliver W. ; Varelas, Panayiotis N. ; Westermaier, Thomas ; Weimar, Christian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-3a706f561c854054382b0c677a00dabb07d4c5c486824367d07a44b57e46fc933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Counseling</topic><topic>Critical Care Medicine</topic><topic>Guillain-Barre syndrome</topic><topic>Guillain-Barre Syndrome - diagnosis</topic><topic>Guillain-Barre Syndrome - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>NCS Guidelines</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Respiration, Artificial</topic><topic>Respiratory failure</topic><topic>Respiratory Insufficiency</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Variables</topic><topic>Ventilators</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Busl, Katharina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fried, Herbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muehlschlegel, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wartenberg, Katja E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rajajee, Venkatakrishna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexander, Sheila A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Creutzfeldt, Claire J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fontaine, Gabriel V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hocker, Sara E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hwang, David Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Keri S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madzar, Dominik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahanes, Dea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mainali, Shraddha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meixensberger, Juergen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sakowitz, Oliver W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varelas, Panayiotis N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westermaier, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weimar, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Neurocritical care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Busl, Katharina M.</au><au>Fried, Herbert</au><au>Muehlschlegel, Susanne</au><au>Wartenberg, Katja E.</au><au>Rajajee, Venkatakrishna</au><au>Alexander, Sheila A.</au><au>Creutzfeldt, Claire J.</au><au>Fontaine, Gabriel V.</au><au>Hocker, Sara E.</au><au>Hwang, David Y.</au><au>Kim, Keri S.</au><au>Madzar, Dominik</au><au>Mahanes, Dea</au><au>Mainali, Shraddha</au><au>Meixensberger, Juergen</au><au>Sakowitz, Oliver W.</au><au>Varelas, Panayiotis N.</au><au>Westermaier, Thomas</au><au>Weimar, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain–Barré Syndrome</atitle><jtitle>Neurocritical care</jtitle><stitle>Neurocrit Care</stitle><addtitle>Neurocrit Care</addtitle><date>2023-06-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>564</spage><epage>583</epage><pages>564-583</pages><issn>1541-6933</issn><eissn>1556-0961</eissn><abstract>Background
Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10–30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates.
Methods
A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: “When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?” Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.
Results
Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete clinical condition as opposed to a single variable during prognostication.
Conclusions
These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of the need for mechanical ventilation, poor functional outcome, and independent ambulation following GBS in the context of counseling patients and/or surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence, and higher quality data are needed.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>36964442</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3</doi><tpages>20</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1541-6933 |
ispartof | Neurocritical care, 2023-06, Vol.38 (3), p.564-583 |
issn | 1541-6933 1556-0961 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10241707 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings; ProQuest Central |
subjects | Adult Counseling Critical Care Medicine Guillain-Barre syndrome Guillain-Barre Syndrome - diagnosis Guillain-Barre Syndrome - therapy Humans Intensive Internal Medicine Medicine Medicine & Public Health Mortality NCS Guidelines Neurology Neurosurgery Probability Prognosis Reproducibility of Results Respiration, Artificial Respiratory failure Respiratory Insufficiency Validation studies Variables Ventilators |
title | Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Adults with Guillain–Barré Syndrome |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T23%3A18%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Guidelines%20for%20Neuroprognostication%20in%20Adults%20with%20Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9%20Syndrome&rft.jtitle=Neurocritical%20care&rft.au=Busl,%20Katharina%20M.&rft.date=2023-06-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=564&rft.epage=583&rft.pages=564-583&rft.issn=1541-6933&rft.eissn=1556-0961&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12028-023-01707-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2919608195%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2919608195&rft_id=info:pmid/36964442&rfr_iscdi=true |