Emergence from minimally conscious state

Background: Guidelines for defining the minimally conscious state (MCS) specify behaviors that characterize emergence, including “reliable and consistent” functional communication (accurate yes/no responding). Guidelines were developed by consensus because of lack of empirical data. Objective: To evaluate the utility of the operational threshold for emergence from posttraumatic MCS, by determining yes/no accuracy to questions of varied difficulty, including simple orientation questions, using all items from the Yes/No Subscale of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test. Method: Prospective observational study of a cohort of responsive patients recovering from traumatic brain injury in an acute inpatient brain injury rehabilitation program. Results: Of the 629 observations from 144 participants, name recognition was the easiest yes/no question, with nonconfused individuals responding with 100% accuracy, whereas only 75% to 78% of confused participants on initial evaluation answered this question correctly. Generalized Estimating Equations analysis revealed that confused participants were more likely to respond inaccurately to all yes/no questions. Nonconfused participants had a reduction in odds of inaccuracy ranging from 45.6% to 99.7% (p = 0.001 to 0.02) depending on the type of yes/no question. Conclusions: Accuracy for simple orientation yes/no questions remains challenging for responsive patients in early recovery from traumatic brain injury. Although name recognition questions are relatively easier than other types of yes/no questions, including situational orientation questions, confused patients still may answer these incorrectly. Results suggest the operational threshold for yes/no response accuracy as a diagnostic criterion for emergence from the minimally conscious state should be revisited, with particular consideration of the type of yes/no questions and the requisite accuracy threshold for responses.

[1]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Cerebral response to patient's own name in the vegetative and minimally conscious states , 2007, Neurology.

[2]  M. Kronbichler,et al.  Selective brain activity in response to one’s own name in the persistent vegetative state , 2006, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[3]  J. Hanley,et al.  Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  J. Giacino,et al.  The JFK coma recovery scale—revised , 2005, Neuropsychological rehabilitation.

[5]  P. Valdés,et al.  Recognizing a Mother's Voice in the Persistent Vegetative State , 2007, Clinical EEG and neuroscience.

[6]  J. Giacino,et al.  The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria , 2002, Neurology.

[7]  A. Owen,et al.  Neuroimaging and the Vegetative State , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[8]  A. Mack,et al.  What we see: Inattention and the capture of attention by meaning , 2002, Consciousness and Cognition.

[9]  N. Childs,et al.  Accuracy of diagnosis of persistent vegetative state , 1993, Neurology.

[10]  Manuel Schabus,et al.  Brain response to one's own name in vegetative state, minimally conscious state, and locked-in syndrome. , 2006, Archives of neurology.

[11]  T. Nick,et al.  Use of the cognitive test for delirium in patients with traumatic brain injury. , 2003, Psychosomatics.

[12]  M Sherer,et al.  Serial yes/no reliability after traumatic brain injury: implications regarding the operational criteria for emergence from the minimally conscious state , 2008, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[13]  M. Boly,et al.  Cerebral processing in the minimally conscious state , 2004, Neurology.

[14]  J. Bernat Questions remaining about the minimally conscious state. , 2002, Neurology.

[15]  M Sherer,et al.  Brief assessment of severe language impairments: Initial validation of the Mississippi aphasia screening test , 2005, Brain injury.

[16]  S. Lange,et al.  Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how? , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  A. Heinemann,et al.  Measurement Properties of the Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) and Improvement Patterns During Inpatient Rehabilitation , 2000, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[18]  H. Levin,et al.  Recovery of orientation following closed-head injury. , 1990, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[19]  S Laureys,et al.  Voluntary brain processing in disorders of consciousness , 2008, Neurology.

[20]  L. Dušek,et al.  A standardization study of the Czech version of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (MASTcz) in stroke patients and control subjects , 2008, Brain injury.

[21]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Mismatch negativity to the patient’s own name in chronic disorders of consciousness , 2008, Neuroscience Letters.

[22]  D. Coleman The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria. , 2002, Neurology.

[23]  C. Sessler,et al.  Validation of a cognitive test for delirium in medical ICU patients. , 1996, Psychosomatics.

[24]  N Birbaumer,et al.  Late recovery from permanent traumatic vegetative state heralded by event-related potentials , 2006, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[25]  M Rappaport,et al.  Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. , 1982, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  J. DeLuca,et al.  Monitoring rate of recovery to predict outcome in minimally responsive patients. , 1991, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.