Could Arterial Spin Labeling Distinguish Patients in Minimally Conscious State from Patients in Vegetative State?

Background Previously published studies have reported that up to 43% of patients with disorders of consciousness are erroneously assigned a diagnosis of vegetative state (VS). However, no recent studies have investigated the accuracy of this grave clinical diagnosis. In this study, we compared consensus-based diagnoses of VS and MCS to those based on a well-established standardized neurobehavioral rating scale, the JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). Methods We prospectively followed 103 patients (55 ± 19 years) with mixed etiologies and compared the clinical consensus diagnosis provided by the physician on the basis of the medical staff's daily observations to diagnoses derived from CRS-R assessments performed by research staff. All patients were assigned a diagnosis of 'VS', 'MCS' or 'uncertain diagnosis.' Results Of the 44 patients diagnosed with VS based on the clinical consensus of the medical team, 18 (41%) were found to be in MCS following standardized assessment with the CRS-R. In the 41 patients with a consensus diagnosis of MCS, 4 (10%) had emerged from MCS, according to the CRS-R. We also found that the majority of patients assigned an uncertain diagnosis by clinical consensus (89%) were in MCS based on CRS-R findings. Conclusion Despite the importance of diagnostic accuracy, the rate of misdiagnosis of VS has not substantially changed in the past 15 years. Standardized neurobehavioral assessment is a more sensitive means of establishing differential diagnosis in patients with disorders of consciousness when compared to diagnoses determined by clinical consensus. Show more

The concept of consciousness continues to defy definition and elude the grasp of philosophical and scientific efforts to formulate a testable construct that maps to human experience. Severe acquired brain injury results in the dissolution of consciousness, providing a natural model from which key insights about consciousness may be drawn. In the clinical setting, neurologists and neurorehabilitation specialists are called on to discern the level of consciousness in patients who are unable to communicate through word or gesture, and to project outcomes and recommend approaches to treatment. Standards of care are not available to guide clinical decision-making for this population, often leading to inconsistent, inaccurate and inappropriate care. In this Review, we describe the state of the science with regard to clinical management of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. We review consciousness-altering pathophysiological mechanisms, specific clinical syndromes, and novel diagnostic and prognostic applications of advanced neuroimaging and electrophysiological procedures. We conclude with a provocative discussion of bioethical and medicolegal issues that are unique to this population and have a profound impact on care, as well as raising questions of broad societal interest. Show more

We review the nosological criteria and functional neuroanatomical basis for brain death, coma, vegetative state, minimally conscious state, and the locked-in state. Functional neuroimaging is providing new insights into cerebral activity in patients with severe brain damage. Measurements of cerebral metabolism and brain activations in response to sensory stimuli with PET, fMRI, and electrophysiological methods can provide information on the presence, degree, and location of any residual brain function. However, use of these techniques in people with severe brain damage is methodologically complex and needs careful quantitative analysis and interpretation. In addition, ethical frameworks to guide research in these patients must be further developed. At present, clinical examinations identify nosological distinctions needed for accurate diagnosis and prognosis. Neuroimaging techniques remain important tools for clinical research that will extend our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of these disorders. Show more