Upper Limb Dexterity in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: An Important and Underrated Morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Scales to assess disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) rarely provide reliable data on actual global impairment. Upper limb dysfunction is usually overlooked, which has a negative effect on patient well-being. We sought to analyze associations among upper limb dexterity, lower limb speed, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score; the difference in upper limb dexterity between patients with EDSS scores less than 5 and 5 or greater; and the associations that upper limb dexterity, lower limb speed, and EDSS score have with health-related quality of life measurements and depression. METHODS: A total of 140 adults with MS were evaluated using the Nine-Hole Peg Test, Timed 25-Foot Walk test, EDSS, Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life (MusiQoL) questionnaire, and Beck Depression Inventory. Thorough descriptive-analytical research was conducted using the Spearman correlation, multiple linear regression, and structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Upper limb dexterity was more closely related to EDSS score than lower limb speed (r = 0.43 vs 0.29, R 2 = 0.38) and was greatest in patients with EDSS scores less than 5 (P < .01). Moreover, upper limb dexterity was negatively associated with EDSS score and the MusiQoL questionnaire (rS = -0.557 to -0.321, P < .05). The correlation that depression has with upper limb dexterity loss was higher than the one it has with lower limb speed (0.098 vs 0.066, t > 1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Upper limb dexterity is associated with global disability, depression, and health-related quality of life. We advocate for the assessment of upper limb dexterity in patients with MS to adopt a better approach to their functional impairment.

Brain Function Assessment of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis in the Expanded Disability Status Scale: A Proposal for Modification.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding assessment of the brain function functional system (FS) of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). We sought to describe brain function FS assessment criteria used by Argentinian neurologists and, based on the results, propose redefined brain function FS criteria. METHODS: A structured survey was conducted of 113 Argentinian neurologists. Considering the survey results, we decided to redefine the brain function FS scoring using the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS) battery. For 120 adult patients with MS we calculated the EDSS score without brain function FS (basal EDSS) and compared it with the EDSS score after adding the modified brain function FS (modified EDSS). RESULTS: Of the 93 neurologists analyzed, 14% reported that they did not assess brain function FS, 35% reported that they assessed it through a nonstructured interview, and the remainder used other tools. Significant differences were found in EDSS scores before and after the inclusion of BICAMS (P < .001). Redefining the brain function FS, 15% of patients modified their basal EDSS score, as did 20% of those with a score of 4.0 or less. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results show the importance of unifying the brain function FS scoring criteria in calculating the EDSS score. While allowing more consistent brain function FS scoring, including the modified brain function FS led to a change in EDSS score in many patients, particularly in the lower range of EDSS scores. Considering the relevance of the EDSS for monitoring patients with MS and for decision making, it is imperative to further validate the modified brain function FS scoring.

Safety of Positive Pressure Extubation Technique.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory studies suggest applying positive pressure without endotracheal suction during cuff deflation and extubation. Although some studies reported better physiological outcomes (e.g. arterial blood gases) with this technique, the safety of positive pressure extubation technique has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to determine the safety of the positive-pressure extubation technique compared with the traditional extubation technique in terms of incidence of complications. METHODS: Adult subjects who were critically ill and on invasive mechanical ventilation who met extubation criteria were included. The subjects were randomly assigned to positive-pressure extubation (n = 120) or to traditional extubation (n = 120). Sequential tests for noninferiority and, when appropriate, for superiority were performed. Positive pressure was considered noninferior if the upper limit of the CI for the absolute risk difference did not exceed a threshold of 15% in favor of the traditional group, both in per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses. A P value of <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 236 subjects were included in the primary analysis (per protocol) (119 in the positive-pressure group and 117 in the traditional group). The incidence of overall major and minor complications, pneumonia, extubation failure, and reintubation was lower in the positive-pressure group than in the traditional group, with statistical significance for noninferiority both in the per protocol (P < .001) and intention-to-treat (P < .001) analyses. The lower incidence of major complications found in the positive-pressure group reached statistical significance for the superiority comparison, both in per protocol (P = .03) and intention-to-treat (P = .049) analyses. No statistically significant differences were found in the superiority comparison for overall complications, minor complications, pneumonia, extubation failure, and reintubation. CONCLUSIONS: Positive pressure was safe and noninferior to traditional extubation methods. Furthermore, positive pressure has shown to be superior in terms of a lower incidence of major complications. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03174509.).