Residual cognitive function in comatose, vegetative and minimally conscious states

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 726-733

  Laureys, Steven ^a,b   Perrin, Fabien ^c   Schnakers, Caroline ^a   Boly, Melanie ^a,b   Majerus, Steve ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^b FNRS   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

Brain injury; Coma; Functional imaging; Minimally conscious state; Vegetative state

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

AWARENESS; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN CORTEX; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; BRAIN FUNCTION; BRAIN INJURY; COGNITION; COMA; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EMOTION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GLASGOW COMA SCALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MINIMALLY CONSCIOUS STATE; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERCEPTION; PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 27944441688     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.wco.0000189874.92362.12     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Jennett B. 30 years of the vegetative state: clinical, ethical and legal problems. In: Laureys S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 541-548. This state-of-the-art review was written by an unrivalled expert in the field who, 30 years ago, collaborated in coining the term 'vegetative state'.
2. Giacino J. The minimally conscious state: defining the borders of consciousness. In: Laurey S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 385-400. This paper is an exhaustive review of defining criteria, epidemiology, neuropathology and assessment issues for the MCS.
3. Giacino JT. The vegetative and minimally conscious states: consensus-based criteria for establishing diagnosis and prognosis. NeuroRehabilitation 2004; 19:293-298. This paper elegantly summarizes practice recommendations proposed by the Multi Society Task Force on the vegetative state and the Aspen workgroup on the MCS.
4. Giacino J, Whyte J. The vegetative and minimally conscious states: current knowledge and remaining questions. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2005; 20:30-50. This is an excellent review of defining criteria, neuropathology, prognosis, assessment and treatment issues for vegetative state and MCS.
5. Laureys S, Pellas F, van Eeckhout P, et al. The locked-in syndrome: what is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? In: Laurey S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 495-511. This is a timely review on the quality of life in the locked-in syndrome based on data collected by the French association ALIS.
6. Fins JJ. Clinical pragmatism and the care of brain damaged patients: Towards a palliative neuroethics for disorders of consciousness. In: Laurey S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 569-586. This review proposes an ethical framework for consciousness research in non-communicative brain-damaged patients and discusses the regulatory complexity when studying patients who are unable to provide consent.
7. Majerus S, Gill-Thwaites H, Andrews K, et al. Behavioral evaluation of consciousness in severe brain damage. In: Laurey S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 401-418. This review provides a comprehensive discussion of behavioural assessment techniques and clinical issues for bedside assessment of patients in coma, vegetative state and MCS.
8. Giacino JT, Kezmarsky MA, DeLuca J, et al. Monitoring rate of recovery to predict outcome in minimally responsive patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72:897-901.
9. Shiel A, Horn SA, Wilson BA, et al. The Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) main scale: a preliminary report on a scale to assess and monitor patient recovery after severe head injury. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14:408-416.
10. Ansell BJ, Keenan JE. The Western Neuro Sensory Stimulation Profile: a tool for assessing slow-to-recover head-injured patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70:104-108.
11. Giacino JT, Kalmar K, Whyte J. The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85:2020-2029. This paper presents validation data for the new JFK Coma Recovery Scale. This scale might prove to be highly valuable in making reliable diagnoses for patients in a vegetative state.
12. Gill-Thwaites H, Munday R. The sensory modality assessment and rehabilitation technique (SMART): a valid and reliable assessment for vegetative state and minimally conscious state patients. Brain Inj 2004; 18:1255-1269. This paper presents a new behavioural assessment technique that covers more sensory input modalities than most previous scales. This tool might also be very useful in helping to establish reliable diagnoses in patients in altered states of consciousness.
13. Pape TL, Senno RG, Guernon A, et al. A measure of neurobehavioral functioning after coma. Part II: Clinical and scientific implementation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42:19-28. This extensive two-part paper reports on a new behavioural assessment scale for patients in altered states of consciousness.
14. Pape TL, Heinemann AW, Kelly JP, et al. A measure of neurobehavioral functioning after coma. Part I: Theory, reliability, and validity of disorders of consciousness scale. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42:1-18.
15. Neumann N, Kotchoubey B. Assessment of cognitive functions in severely paralysed and severely brain-damaged patients: neuropsychological and electrophysiological methods. Brain Res Brain Res Protoc 2004; 14:25-36. This paper presents a very interesting neuropsychological test battery for evaluating higher cognitive functions in severely motor-disabled patients.
16. Whyte J, Katz D, Long D, et al. Predictors of outcome in prolonged post-traumatic disorders of consciousness and assessment of medication effects: A multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86:453-462. This longitudinal observational cohort study from seven acute rehabilitation facilities in the US and Germany showed a positive effect of amantadine and a negative effect of dantrolene on traumatic brain injury outcome. Neuro-rehabilitation needs such well-designed studies in order to propose long awaited evidence-based therapeutic guidelines.
17. Giacino JT, Trott CT. Rehabilitative management of patients with disorders of consciousness: grand rounds. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004; 19:254-265.
18. Lammi MH, Smith VH, Tate RL, et al. The minimally conscious state and recovery potential: a follow-up study 2 to 5 years after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86:746-754.
19. McMillan TM, Herbert CM. Further recovery in a potential treatment withdrawal case 10 years after brain injury. Brain Inj 2004; 18:935-940.
20. Strens LH, Mazibrada G, Duncan JS, et al. Misdiagnosing the vegetative state after severe brain injury: the influence of medication. Brain Inj 2004; 18:213-218.
21. Elliott L, Coleman M, Shiel A, et al. Effect of posture on levels of arousal and awareness in vegetative and minimally conscious state patients: a preliminary investigation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76:298-299.
22. Booth CM, Boone RH, Tomlinson G, et al. Is this patient dead, vegetative, or severely neurologically impaired? Assessing outcome for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. JAMA 2004; 291:870-879. This systematic review and meta-analysis encompassed 1914 patients from 11 studies on the prognosis of post-cardiac arrest coma.
23. Zandbergen EG, de Haan RJ, Stoutenbeek CP, et al. Systematic review of early prediction of poor outcome in anoxic- ischaemic coma. Lancet 1998; 352:1808-1812.
24. Giaquinto S. Evoked potentials in rehabilitation. A review. Funct Neurol 2004; 19:219-225. This comprehensive review discusses the role of ERP as prognostic, longitudinal monitoring and cortical remodelling tools in clinical and research rehabilitation settings.
25. Robinson LR, Micklesen PJ. Somatosensory evoked potentials in coma prognosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2004; 15:43-61.
26. Amantini A, Grippo A, Fossi S, et al. Prediction of 'awakening' and outcome in prolonged acute coma from severe traumatic brain injury: evidence for validity of short latency SEPs. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116:229-235. This study, encompassing 60 patients with coma of 7 days or longer, confirmed the high predictive value of SEPs and stresses that in TBI, differently from post-anoxic coma, the presence of normal N20 responses has a favourable prognostic value.
27. Schalamon J, Singer G, Kurschel S, et al. Somatosensory evoked potentials in children with severe head trauma. Eur J Pediatr 2005; 164:417-420.
28. Carter BG, Butt W. A prospective study of outcome predictors after severe brain injury in children. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:840-845. This prospective clinical study in a paediatric intensive care unit confirmed the predictive role of SEPs in 102 severely brain-injured children.
29. Carter BG, Butt W. Are somatosensory evoked potentials the best predictor of outcome after severe brain injury? A systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:765-775. This meta-analysis of 25 articles shows the superior predictive power of SEPs compared with clinical examination (pupillary and motor responses and GCS), EEG and computed tomography.
30. Zingler VC, Pohlmann-Eden B. Diagnostic pitfalls in patients with hypoxic brain damage: three case reports. Resuscitation 2005; 65:107-110.
31. Fischer C, Luaute J, Adeleine P, et al. Predictive value of sensory and cognitive evoked potentials for awakening from coma. Neurology 2004; 63:669-673. This milestone article corroborates the high specificity of MMN in a prospective cohort study of 346 comatose patients.
32. Luaute J, Fischer C, Adeleine P, et al. Late auditory and event-related potentials can be useful to predict good functional outcome after coma. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86:917-923.
33. Schoenle PW, Witzke W. How vegetative is the vegetative state? Preserved semantic processing in vegetative state patients: evidence from N 400 event-related potentials. NeuroRehabilitation 2004; 19:329-334. This was the first study to suggest that N400 responses can be evoked in patients with severe disorders of consciousness, notably some vegetative state patients.
34. Laureys S, Perrin F, Faymonville ME, et al. Cerebral processing in the minimally conscious state. Neurology 2004; 63:916-918. This PET activation study illustrated that stimuli with emotional valence induce more widespread cerebral activation in MCS than does neutral stimulation.
35. Kotchoubey B, Lang S, Mezger G, et al. Information processing in severe disorders of consciousness: Vegetative state and minimally conscious state. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116:2441-2453. This is a thought-provoking paper on the presence of electrophysiological indicators of remaining cortical functions in vegetative state and MCS patients.
36. Hinterberger T, Wilhelm B, Mellinger J, et al. A device for the detection of cognitive brain functions in completely paralyzed or unresponsive patients. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005; 52:211-220. This paper presents original data and reviews the possibilities of brain-computer interfaces in unresponsive patients with remaining cognitive abilities.
37. Laureys S, Owen AM, Schiff ND. Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders. Lancet Neurol 2004; 3:537-546. This review summarizes the functional neuroanatomy of brain death, coma, vegetative state, MCS, and the locked-in syndrome.
38. Bergsneider M, Hovda DA, Lee SM, et al. Dissociation of cerebral glucose metabolism and level of consciousness during the period of metabolic depression following human traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2000; 17:389-401.
39. Wu HM, Huang SC, Hattori N, et al. Selective metabolic reduction in gray matter acutely following human traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2004; 21:149-161. This PET study on 14 TBI patients shows a higher grey to white matter metabolism ratio in cases with good recovery 1 year after trauma.
40. Hattori N, Huang SC, Wu HM, et al. Correlation of regional metabolic rates of glucose with Glasgow Coma Scale after traumatic brain injury. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:1709-1716.
41. Laureys S. Functional neuroimaging in the vegetative state. NeuroRehabilitation 2004; 19:335-341.
42. Laureys S, Goldman S, Phillips C, et al. Impaired effective cortical connectivity in vegetative state: preliminary investigation using PET. Neuroimage 1999; 9:377-382.
43. Greicius MD, Menon V. Default-mode activity during a passive sensory task: uncoupled from deactivation but impacting activation. J Cogn Neurosci 2004; 16:1484-1492.
44. Juengling FD, Kassubek J, Huppertz HJ, et al. Separating functional and structural damage in persistent vegetative state using combined voxel-based analysis of 3-D MRI and FDG-PET. J Neurol Sci 2005; 228:179-184. This was the first study employing a voxel-based approach to the analysis of structural lesions in the vegetative state.
45. Beuthien-Baumann B, Holthoff VA, Rudolf J. Functional imaging of vegetative state applying single photon emission tomography and positron emission tomography. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:276-282.
46. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Menon DK, et al. Using a hierarchical approach to investigate residual auditory cognition in persistent vegetative state. In: Laureys S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 457-471. This review proposes an elegant systematic methodology for functional neuroimaging paradigms in the vegetative state and presents some preliminary results.
47. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Menon DK, et al. Residual auditory function in persistent vegetative state: a combined pet and fmri study. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:290-306. This well-detailed case report illustrates the hierarchical approach as proposed by the Cambridge Coma Group to investigate residual auditory cognition in vegetative state.
48. Dehaene S, Naccache L, Le Clec HG, et al. Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature 1998; 395:597-600.
49. Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, et al. Cortical processing of noxious somatosensory stimuli in the persistent vegetative state. Neuroimage 2002; 17:732-741.
50. Treede RD, Kenshalo DR, Gracely RH, et al. The cortical representation of pain. Pain 1999; 79:105-111.
51. Hofbauer RK, Fiset P, Plourde G, et al. Dose-dependent effects of propofol on the central processing of thermal pain. Anesthesiology 2004; 100:386-394.
52. Schiff N. Modelling the minimally conscious state: measurements of brain function and therapeutic possibilities. In: Laureys S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 473-493. This is an authoritative well-written review proposing models of brain function in MCS and the vegetative state.
53. Schiff ND, Rodriguez-Moreno D, Kamal A, et al. fMRI reveals large-scale network activation in minimally conscious patients. Neurology 2005; 64:514-523. This describes a milestone study on language processing in MCS patients using fMRI illustrating that these patients retain widely distributed cortical systems with potential for cognitive and sensory function.
54. Bekinschtein T, Niklison J, Sigman L, et al. Emotion processing in the minimally conscious state. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75:788. This was a groundbreaking PET activation study on emotional processing in MCS.
55. Boly M, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, et al. Auditory processing in severely brain injured patients: differences between the minimally conscious state and the persistent vegetative state. Arch Neurol 2004; 61:233-238. This PET activation study was the first to compare residual auditory processing in the vegetative state as compared with MCS patients.
56. Bekinschtein T, Tiberti C, Niklison J, et al. Assessing level of consciousness and cognitive changes from vegetative state to full recovery. Neuropsychol Rehab 2005; 15:307-322. This well-documented fMRI and behavioural investigation studied a patient while in the vegetative state and after recovery of consciousness.
57. Coleman MR, Menon DK, Fryer TD, et al. Neurometabolic coupling in the vegetative and minimally conscious states: preliminary findings. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76:432-434. This combined PET-EEG study was the first to illustrate the importance of the homeostatic coupling between neuronal electrical and metabolic function, differentiating the vegetative state from MCS.
58. Schiff ND, Plum F, Rezai AR. Developing prosthetics to treat cognitive disabilities resulting from acquired brain injuries. Neurol Res 2002; 24:116-124.
59. Kotchoubey B. Event-related potential measures of consciousness: two equations with three unknown. In: Laureys S, editor. Progress in brain research. Volume 150. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 427-444. This stimulating review discusses what ERP can and cannot tell about cognition and consciousness.
60. Kobylarz EJ, Schiff N. Neuropsychological correlates of persistent vegetative and minimally conscious states. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:323-332. This is a recommended review discussing EEG power spectra and coherence analyses in vegetative state and MCS.
61. Kobylarz EJ, Schiff ND. Functional imaging of severely brain-injured patients: progress, challenges, and limitations. Arch Neurol 2004; 61:1357-1360. This is a nice overview of the challenges encountered in functional neuroimaging studies of severe brain damage.
62. Fins JJ, Plum F. Neurological diagnosis is more than a state of mind: diagnostic clarity and impaired consciousness. Arch Neurol 2004; 61:1354-1355.
63. Schiff ND, Ribary U, Moreno DR, et al. Residual cerebral activity and behavioural fragments can remain in the persistently vegetative brain. Brain 2002; 125:1210-1234.
64. Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Degueldre C, et al. Auditory processing in the vegetative state. Brain 2000; 123:1589-1601.