How should functional imaging of patients with disorders of consciousness contribute to their clinical rehabilitation needs?

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 520-527

  Laureys, Steven ^a   Giacino, Joseph T ^b   Schiff, Nicholas D ^c   Schabus, Manuel ^a,d   Owen, Adrian M ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^b NEW JERSEY NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG   (Austria)

^e MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical rehabilitation; Disorders of consciousness; Functional imaging

Indexed keywords

BRAIN FUNCTION; CONSCIOUSNESS DISORDER; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REHABILITATION CARE; REVIEW; TREATMENT PLANNING;

BRAIN; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 33751027514     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3280106ba9     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Bernat JL. Chronic disorders of consciousness. Lancet 2006; 367:1181-1192. Outstanding review of diagnosis, brain function, therapy and prognosis in VS and MCS.
2. Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, et al. The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 2002; 58:349-353.
3. 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. Neurorehabilitation needs such well-designed studies in order to inform long-awaited, evidence-based therapeutic guidelines.
4. 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.
5. Jennett B, Plum F. Persistent vegetative state after brain damage. A syndrome in search of a name. Lancet 1972; i:734-737.
6. Fins JJ. Constructing an ethical stereotaxy for severe brain injury: balancing risks, benefits and access. Nat Rev Neurosci 2003; 4:323-327.
7. Hirsch J. Raising consciousness. J Clin Invest 2005; 115:1102-1103.
8. Laureys S, Boly M, Maquet P. Tracking the recovery of consciousness from coma. J Clin Invest 2006; 116:1823-1825.
9. American Academy of Neurology. AAN guideline development process. American Academy of Neurology: St Paul 2006; http://www.aan.com/professionals/ practice/development.cfm.
10. Giacino J, Whyte J. The vegetative and minimally conscious States: current knowledge and remaining questions. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2005; 20:30-50. This comprehensive review updates the state of the science in assessment and treatment of patients with prolonged DOC following traumatic brain injury.
11. Zeman A. What in the world is consciousness? Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:1-10.
12. Andrews K. International Working Party on the Management of the Vegetative State: summary report. Brain Inj 1996; 10:797-806.
13. Giacino J. The minimally conscious state: defining the borders of consciousness. Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:385-400. This paper is an exhaustive review of defining criteria, epidemiology, neuropathology and assessment issues for the MCS.
14. The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Practice parameters: assessment and management of patients in the persistent vegetative state (summary statement). Neurology 1995; 45:1015-1018.
15. Royal College of Physicians. The vegetative state: guidance on diagnosis and management. Clin Med 2003; 3:249-254.
16. Giacino JT, Trott CT. Rehabilitative management of patients with disorders of consciousness: grand rounds. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004; 19:254-265.
17. Kobylarz EJ, Schiff ND. Neurophysiological correlates of persistent vegetative and minimally conscious states. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:323-332. Review on the significance of EEG analyses in the frequency domain including band power and coherence measures, which provide important information on the communication between cortical, as well as with subcortical areas in VS and MCS.
18. Tresch DD, Sims FH, Duthie EH, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients in the persistent vegetative state. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151:930-932.
19. Childs NL, Mercer WN, Childs HW. Accuracy of diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Neurology 1993; 43:1465-1467.
20. Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, et al. Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 1996; 313:13-16.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Majerus S, Gill-Thwaites H, Andrews K, et al. Behavioral evaluation of consciousness in severe brain damage. Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:397-413. This paper provides an excellent review and critical appraisal of standardized assessment instruments designed specifically for patients with DOC.
25. Lombardi F, Taricco M, De Tanti A, et al. Sensory stimulation for brain injured individuals in coma or vegetative state (Cochrane Collaboration 3). New York: Wiley; 2005. This evidence-based review of the effectiveness of sensory stimulation is the only report in the Cochrane Library that pertains to rehabilitation efficacy in DOC.
26. Giacino JT. Rehabilitation of patients with disorders of consciousness. In: High W, Sander A, Struchen M, Hart K, editors. Rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 305-337. This review was originally commissioned by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and presented during the 2003 State of the Science in TBI Research conference. It offers a comprehensive evidence-based review of rehabilitative interventions utilized in patients with DOC.
27. 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.
28. Eilander HJ, Wijnen VJ, Scheirs JG, et al. Children and young adults in a prolonged unconscious state due to severe brain injury: outcome after an early intensive neurorehabilitation programme. Brain Inj 2005; 19:425-436.
29. Smith R, Fields F, Lenox J, et al. A functional scale of recovery from severe head trauma. Clin Neuropsychol 1979; 1:48-50.
30. Ng YS, Stein J, Salles SS, et al. Clinical characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes of patients with posterior cerebral artery stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86:2138-2143.
31. Sorbo A, Rydenhag B, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Outcome after severe brain damage, what makes the difference? Brain Inj 2005; 19:493-503.
32. The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (2). N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1572-1579.
33. Yamamoto T, Katayama Y. Deep brain stimulation therapy for the vegetative state. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:406-413.
34. Schiff ND, Plum F, Rezai AR. Developing prosthetics to treat cognitive disabilities resulting from acquired brain injuries. Neurol Res 2002; 24:116-124.
35. Laureys S, Perrin F, Schnakers C, et al. Residual cognitive function in comatose, vegetative and minimally conscious states. Curr Opin Neurol 2005; 18:726-733.
36. Guerit JM. Neurophysiological patterns of vegetative and minimally conscious states. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:357-371. Good review about the usefulness of ERPs in DOC. The paper propose two indices summarizing various neurophysiological parameters for clinical application: the index of (1) brainstem conduction and (2) global cortical functioning.
37. Kotchoubey B. Event-related potential measures of consciousness: two equations with three unknown. Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:427-444. General review of ERPs in conditions where conscious perception of the environment is thought to be absent (sleep, coma, VS, general anesthesia, neglect and subliminal processing).
38. 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. Comprehensive study evaluating clinical and classical ERP parameters for predicting functional outcome in 346 comatose patients.
39. Fischer C, Luaute J. Evoked potentials for the prediction of vegetative state in the acute stage of coma. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:372-380.
40. Fischer C, Luaute J, Nemoz C, et al. Improved prediction of awakening or nonawakening from severe anoxic coma using tree-based classification analysis. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1520-1524. This paper proposes a decision tree - with mismatch negativity, pupillary light reflex and somatosensory evoked potentials in the foreground - for predicting outcome from postanoxic coma.
41. 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.
42. 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. Comprehensive study on 98 VS and MCS patients examining various ERP components including mismatch negativity, P3 and brain responses to semantic stimuli.
43. Hinterberger T, Wilhelm B, Mellinger J, et al. A device for the detection of cognitive brain functions in completely paralysed or unresponsive patients. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005; 52:211-220. This paper describes a new tool for detecting cognitive brain activity and awareness in noncommunicative patients using five ERP procedures. Data from five reportedly VS patients are presented, of which two exhibited atypically high levels of responsiveness.
44. Kotchoubey B. Apallic syndrome is not apallic: is vegetative state vegetative? Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:333-356. Empirical study focusing on late ERPs (P3 and N400) in 50 VS patients, including a short review of neuroimaging as well the ERP literature on the topic.
45. Perrin F, Schnakers C, Schabus M, et al. Brain response to one's own name in vegetative state, minimally conscious state, and locked-in syndrome. Arch Neurol 2006; 63:562-569. This study shows a differential P3 response to patients' own names as compared to equiprobable other first names in locked-in, MCS and some VS patients, which suggests partially preserved 'automatic' semantic processing in DOC.
46. Boeve BF, Wijdicks EF, Benarroch EE, et al. Paroxysmal sympathetic storms ('diencephalic seizures') after severe diffuse axonal head injury. Mayo Clin Proc 1998; 73:148-152.
47. Rampil IJ. A primer for EEG signal processing in anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998; 89:980-1002.
48. Schnakers C, Majerus S, Laureys S. Bispectral analysis of electroencephalogram signals during recovery from coma: preliminary findings. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:381-388. Pilot report on the usefulness of the EEG bispectral index for assessing awareness in DOC.
49. Shibata S, Imota T, Shigeomi S, et al. Use of the bispectral index during the early postresuscitative phase after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. J Anesth 2005; 19:243-246.
50. Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Luxen A, et al. Restoration of thalamocortical connectivity after recovery from persistent vegetative state. Lancet 2000; 355:1790-1791.
51. Laureys S, Lemaire C, Maquet P, et al. Cerebral metabolism during vegetative state and after recovery to consciousness. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 67:121.
52. Bekinschtein T, Tiberti C, Niklison J, et al. Assessing level of consciousness and cognitive changes from vegetative state to full recovery. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:307-322. A detailed single-case study describing longitudinal fMRI and cognitive assessment of a patient who was assessed both before and after recovery from VS.
53. Voss HU, Uluc AM, Dyke JP, et al. Possible axonal regrowth in late recovery from the minimally conscious state. J Clin Invest 2006; 116:2005-2011. This paper presents an extraordinary case of late recovery from MCS 19 years following trauma, and used state of the art diffusion tensor MRI combined to PET to identify possible axonal regrowth.
54. Boly M, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, et al. Cerebral processing of auditory and noxious stimuli in severely brain injured patients: differences between VS and MCS. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2005; 15:283-289.
55. 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.
56. Schiff ND. Modeling the minimally conscious state: measurements of brain function and therapeutic possibilities. Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:473-493. This review discusses models of brain function in MCS and VS.
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 study was the first to combine PET and EEG to assess the integrity of neurometabolic coupling in VS and MCS. Although preserved in MCS, this vital homeostatic function was markedly absent in VS.
58. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Menon DK, et al. Using a hierarchical approach to investigate residual auditory cognition in persistent vegetative state. Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:457-471. This review proposes that in order to most effectively define the degree and extent of preserved cognitive function in persistent vegetative state, a hierarchical approach using functional neuroimaging is required.
59. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Boly M, et al. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 2006; 313:1402. This paper describes an extraordinary VS patient where the only evidence of awareness was a normal response during a newly proposed fMRI paradigm.
60. Rodd JM, Davis MH, Johnsrude IS. The neural mechanisms of speech comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. Cereb Cortex 2005; 15:1261-1269.
61. 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. A single-detailed case report of preserved cognitive function in a patient diagnosed as vegetative is described. Using a hierarchical approach to assess language functions, PET and fMRI studies identified preserved speech perception and comprehension in the patient.