Diagnostic value of visual evoked potentials for clinical diagnosis of multiple sclerosis
- 533 Downloads
Prolonged latency of visual evoked potentials (VEP) has been used to identify clinically silent lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) suspects. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability of VEP to predict the development of MS in MS suspects.
Retrospective hospital records of MS suspects were evaluated. VEP was analyzed together with subsequent diagnostic confirmation of MS by McDonald diagnostic criteria for MS-2005.
MS developed in 12 of 35 patients (34 %) and 23 (66 %) failed to exhibit diagnostic characteristics. P100 latencies and interocular latency differences were longer in clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) than non-CDMS patients (p = 0.002, 0.001, respectively). All patients in the subsequent MS group had P100 latencies longer than102 ms, a mean of our MS-free subjects thus providing 100 % of sensitivity. No patient developed MS with a P100 latency <102 ms. Brain MRI lesions associated significantly with developing CDMS (p = 0.001). Predictability of developing CDMS was highest when criteria for P100 latency, interocular latency difference, and brain MRI lesions were combined.
MS suspects with a P100 latency longer than mean of MS-free subjects are more likely to develop MS than those with lower values. VEP latency combined with MRI could improve the accuracy of MS prediction.
KeywordsVisual evoked potentials Optic neuritis Multiple sclerosis MRI Demyelination
We would like to thank Ms. Julaporn Pooliam, MS.C for the statistical calculations ,and Dr. William Beamish in reviewing of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
The Institutional Review Board of Siriraj Hospital.
- 1.Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, Filippi M, Hartung HP, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Metz LM, McFarland HF, O’Connor PW, Sandberg-Wollheim M, Thompson AJ, Weinshenker BG, Wolinsky JS (2005) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 58(6):840–846. doi: 10.1002/ana.20703 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Lee KH, Hashimoto SA, Hooge JP, Kastrukoff LF, Oger JJ, Li DK, Paty DW (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging of the head in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a prospective 2-year follow-up with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT. Neurology 41(5):657–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gronseth GS, Ashman EJ (2000) Practice parameter: the usefulness of evoked potentials in identifying clinically silent lesions in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review): report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 54(9):1720–1725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Grover LK, Hood DC, Ghadiali Q, Grippo TM, Wenick AS, Greenstein VC, Behrens MM, Odel JG (2008) A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis. Doc ophthalmol 117(2):121–128. doi: 10.1007/s10633-007-9112-7 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Paty DW, Oger JJ, Kastrukoff LF, Hashimoto SA, Hooge JP, Eisen AA, Eisen KA, Purves SJ, Low MD, Brandejs V et al (1988) MRI in the diagnosis of MS: a prospective study with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT. Neurology 38(2):180–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Adachi-Usami E (2006) Aging and pattern visual evoked cortical potential. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision, 2nd edn. MIT press, London, pp 361–367Google Scholar