Elsevier

Clinical Neurophysiology

Volume 111, Issue 8, 1 August 2000, Pages 1388-1394
Clinical Neurophysiology

Sensitivity and specificity of different conduction block criteria

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00329-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives: To resolve the discrepancy between conduction block criteria derived from healthy controls and stricter criteria suggested by computer simulation of interphase cancellation through altered motor units.

Methods: An EMG database provided control nerves from patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or neural muscular atrophy (CMT1) (disease controls) and from subjects without neuromuscular diseases (healthy controls). We estimated normal limits from the healthy controls (criterion A) and from the pooled sample of healthy and disease controls (criterion B). We compared their sensitivity with that of an arbitrary limit of 0.5 (criterion C) in acute (AIDP) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy (CIDP) and in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMNP). Specificity was assessed in ALS and CMT1.

Results: Limits estimated from healthy controls (criterion A: amplitude ratio of <0.7 in median and peroneal nerves and <0.8 in the ulnar nerve) gave false positive results in 17.3% of the ALS nerves. High scatter of the amplitude ratio of the nerves with distal response amplitudes below 1 mV required amplitude-dependent limits (0.36 for distal responses below 1 mV, 0.56 between 1 and 2 mV, and between 0.67 and 0.73 for higher response amplitudes) for criterion B. It was false positive in 4.3% of the ALS nerves and in 28.3% of the CMT1 nerves. A limit of 0.5 for nerves with distal responses above 1 mV and a limit of 0.36 for smaller responses (criterion D) avoided false positive results in ALS without further impairing sensitivity per patient in MMNP. Sensitivity in AIDP was 34.9% for criterion A, 19.5% for criterion B, and 10.2% for criterion D. Amplitude ratios were more sensitive than area ratios in CIDP and MMNP, but less specific in CMT1.

Conclusions: Limits derived from healthy controls are unspecific in chronic neuromuscular diseases and in nerves with low response amplitudes. Criterion D should be used if motor unit restructuring or conduction delays have to be taken into account. Criterion A may be applicable in early AIDP if the distal response amplitude is above 1 mV.

Introduction

Recognition of multifocal motor neuropathy with conduction block (Lewis et al., 1982) as a treatable disease (Pestronk et al., 1988) and early treatment of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) have revived interest in conduction block and temporal dispersion, long known indicators of demyelination (Brown and Feasby, 1984, Cornblath et al., 1991). Proximal nerve stimulation evokes slightly lower but broader responses than distal stimulation because velocity differences become more notable if the excitation front has to travel over a longer distance. A conduction block augments this physiological amplitude decline. Estimates for its lower limit of normal in healthy controls varied between 0.7 and 0.8 (Felsenthal and Teng, 1983, Brown and Feasby, 1984, Olney and Miller, 1984, Taylor, 1993, Oh et al., 1994). Healthy nerves neither account for measurement difficulties in small responses through decreased signal to noise ratio, contaminating spontaneous activity, or movement artifacts, nor for increased interphase cancellation through altered motor units, which may cause amplitude decays of up to 50%, as suggested by computer simulation (Rhee et al., 1990). Proximal/distal amplitude declines were significantly higher in ulnar nerves of patients with axonal neuropathies than among healthy controls (Olney and Miller, 1984). Motor unit restructuring and slow conduction increase interphase cancellation: both factors are present in CMT1. Proximal/distal amplitude declines exceeded 50% in neural muscular atrophy Charcot–Marie–Tooth type I (CMT1) (Uncini et al., 1993). Therefore, conduction block criteria probably have to be very strict if they have to distinguish between CMT1 and acquired chronic demyelinating polyneuropathies (CIDP). Less strict criteria may be sufficient in early AIDP when motor unit remodeling and conduction slowing have not yet occurred (Brown and Feasby, 1984).

At present, uncertainty about the presence of a conduction block remains if the proximal/distal amplitude ratio is within the range of the published guidelines which vary from 0.4 to 0.8 (Cornblath et al., 1991). It can only sometimes be resolved by attention to qualitative aspects (Cornblath et al., 1991). Persistence over time (Lange et al., 1993) or abrupt local amplitude declines suggest a real conduction block. However, conduction blocks may be less focal in disseminated demyelination, and they are only transient in AIDP. Motor units that respond to distal stimulation but are not recruited voluntarily (Cornblath et al., 1991) confirm the presence of a conduction block, but this approach requires advanced methodology and optimal patient cooperation. Therefore, well founded quantitative criteria remain desirable. The effects of interphase cancellation are ignored if the control sample providing the normal limits for the proximal/distal amplitude ratio contains only healthy controls. Nerves affected by conduction delays and by motor unit re-structuring have to be included as well. We had the opportunity to harvest a large EMG database for such nerves. We compared limits estimated from healthy and diseased controls. Conduction block criteria based on these limits and on the arbitrary limit of 0.5 (Rhee et al., 1990) were compared in respect to sensitivity in AIDP, CIDP and MMNP. ALS and CMT served to study their specificity. We also considered proximal/distal area and duration ratios. This field study on data from routine EMG should show how different conduction block criteria work in everyday EMG practice.

Section snippets

Patients and methods

Our database included all routine EMG studies from 1990 to 1996. Data were entered on-line and used for the report. Referral, EMG, and final diagnosis after complete inpatient evaluation were reviewed for all patients. The number of nerves measured per patient varied. Therefore, we report sensitivity and specificity not only per patient but also per nerve. Forty-nine patients without neuromuscular disease after clinical and paraclinical evaluation (19 patients with psychogenic conditions, 20

Heterogeneity of the control nerves

Amplitude, area, and duration ratios were independent of age (Spearman rank correlation, P>0.05), but differed between median, ulnar, and peroneal nerves, requiring separate tolerance limits for these nerves (Table 1, criterion A). The standard deviation of the proximal/distal amplitude ratio in nerves with responses below 1 mV was about twice as high as in nerves with responses above 2 mV (Table 1), requiring separate tolerance limits for small and large responses (Table 1,*). There were no

Discussion

Our data suggest that stricter conduction block criteria should be used when neurogenic restructuring or slowed conduction have to be taken into account and if the responses are small. Inevitably, our retrospective approach involved more methodological variation than a prospective study. On the other hand, it closer resembles routine practice. Our EMG lab serves a neurological intensive care unit caring for many GBS patients and an outpatient clinic for neuromuscular diseases dedicated to ALS

References (23)

  • G. Felsenthal et al.

    Changes in duration and amplitude of the evoked muscle action potential (EMAP) over distance in peroneal, median, and ulnar nerves

    Am J Phys Med

    (1983)
  • Cited by (22)

    • Electrodiagnosis of peripheral neuropathy

      2012, Neurologic Clinics
      Citation Excerpt :

      The general NCS finding that establishes conduction block in a motor nerve is a reduced amplitude (and area) of the CMAP with proximal stimulation and relatively large amplitude when the nerve is stimulated distally (Fig. 1). The degree of amplitude difference between proximal and distal sites that is necessary to define conduction block has been debated, and many criteria exist.5 An inherent difficulty in defining conduction block is the inability to know the degree to which phase cancellation due to temporal dispersion accounts for reduction of the CMAP amplitude obtained with proximal stimulation.

    • Physiology and function

      2006, Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology
    • Multifocal Motor Neuropathy and Conduction Block

      2005, Peripheral Neuropathy: 2-Volume Set with Expert Consult Basic
    • Multifocal motor neuropathy

      2004, Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Rhee et al. (1990) set a criterion of the proximal-to-distal amplitude ratio being less than 0.5 using computer simulation. Pfeiffer et al. (2000) have compared various criteria for diagnosing conduction block and found that a ratio of <0.5 for nerves with distal responses above 1 mV and a limit of 0.36 for smaller responses were the best for excluding ALS. AAEM criteria for conduction block (Table 1) do not set a definite criterion of amplitude reduction for the proximal segment from Erb's point to the axilla.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text