Altered decision-making in multiple sclerosis: a sign of impaired emotional reactivity?

We assessed decision-making capacity and emotional reactivity in 20 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in 16 healthy subjects using the Gambling Task (GT), a model of real-life decision making, and the skin conductance response (SCR). Demographic, neurological, affective, and cognitive parameters were analyzed in MS patients for their effect on decision-making performance. MS patients persisted longer (slope, -3.6%) than the comparison group (slope, -6.4%) in making disadvantageous choices as the GT progressed (p < 0.001), suggesting significant slower learning in MS. Patients with higher Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (EDSS >2.0) showed a different pattern of impairment in the learning process compared with patients with lower functional impairment (EDSS </=2.0). This slower learning was associated with impaired emotional reactivity (anticipatory SCR 3.9 vs 6.1 microSiemens [microS] for patients vs the comparison group, p < 0.0001; post-choice SCR 3.9 vs 6.2 microS, p < 0.0001), but not with executive dysfunction. Impaired emotional dimensions of behavior (assessed using the Dysexecutive Questionnaire, p < 0.002) also correlated with slower learning. Given the considerable consequences that impaired decision making can have on daily life, we suggest that this factor may contribute to handicap and altered quality of life secondary to MS and is dependent on emotional experience. Ann Neurol 2004.

The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism.

Background: The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) rule is a clinical diagnostic rule designed to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) without further testing. We sought to externally validate the diagnostic performance of the PERC rule alone and combined with clinical probability assessment based on the revised Geneva score. Methods: The PERC rule was applied retrospectively to consecutive patients who presented with a clinical suspicion of PE to six emergency departments, and who were enrolled in a randomized trial of PE diagnosis. Patients who met all eight PERC criteria [PERC(-)] were considered to be at a very low risk for PE. We calculated the prevalence of PE among PERC(-) patients according to their clinical pretest probability of PE. We estimated the negative likelihood ratio of the PERC rule to predict PE. Results: Among 1675 patients, the prevalence of PE was 21.3%. Overall, 13.2% of patients were PERC(-). The prevalence of PE was 5.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.1-9.3%] among PERC(-) patients overall and 6.4% (95% CI: 3.7-10.8%) among those PERC(-) patients with a low clinical pretest probability of PE. The PERC rule had a negative likelihood ratio of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67-0.73) for predicting PE overall, and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.38-1.06) in low-risk patients. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the PERC rule alone or even when combined with the revised Geneva score cannot safely identify very low risk patients in whom PE can be ruled out without additional testing, at least in populations with a relatively high prevalence of PE.

Parésie trochléaire transitoire comme signe neurologique inaugural d'une panartérite noueuse [Transient trochlear nerve palsy as the presenting neurological sign of panarteritis nodosa]

INTRODUCTION: Panarteritis nodosa (PAN) is a systemic vasculitis affecting small and medium-sized arteries. Neuro-ophthalmological complications of PAN are rare but numerous, and may affect the eye, the visual and the oculomotor pathways. Such complications occur mainly in patients previously diagnosed with PAN. OBSERVATION: A 51-year-old woman presented with an isolated right trochlear (IV) palsy, in the setting of headaches and fluctuating fever of unknown etiology. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 13 mm and full blood cell count was normal. Previous chest X-ray and blood studies were negative for an infection or inflammation. Orbital and cerebral CT scan was normal. Spontaneous recovery of diplopia ensued over four days. Two days later, paresthesia and sensory paresis of the dorsal portion of the left foot were present. Lumbar puncture revealed 14 leucocytes (76 percent lymphocytes) with elevated proteins, but blood studies and serologies were negative. A diagnosis of undetermined meningo-myelo-radiculoneuritis was made. Because of a possible tick bite six weeks previously the patient was empirically treated with 2 g intravenous ceftriaxone for 3 weeks. Fever rapidly dropped. Six weeks after the onset of diplopia, acute onset of blindness in her right eye, diffuse arthralgias and fever motivated a new hospitalization. There was a central retinal artery occlusion of the right eye. Blood studies now revealed signs of systemic inflammation (ESR 30 mm, CRP 12 mg/L, ANA 1/80, pANCA 1/40, leucocytosis 12.4 G/L, Hb 111 g/L, Ht 33 percent). Biopsy of the left sural nerve revealed arterial fibrinoid necrosis. A diagnosis of PAN was made. CONCLUSIONS: Transient diplopia can be the heralding symptom of a systemic vasculitis such as PAN, giant cell arteritis and Wegener granulomatosis. In this patient the presence of accompanying systemic symptoms raised a suspicion of systemic inflammation, but the absence of serologic and imaging abnormalities precluded a specific diagnosis initially. A few weeks later, the presence of a second ischemic event (retinal) and positive blood studies led to a further diagnostic procedure. Oculomotor and abducens palsies have rarely been reported in association with PAN. We report the first case of trochlear nerve paresis as the inaugural neurological sign of PAN. This case highlights the importance of considering inflammatory systemic disorders in patients with acute diplopia particularly when they are young, lack vascular risk factors or cause, and complain of associated systemic symptoms.

Sign of the Times, March-May 2014

Newsletter produced by Deaf Services Commission of Iowa