Neurocritical Care

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 447–453 | Cite as

Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Liege Scale/Glasgow Coma Scale in an Intensive Care Unit Population

  • Marie-Aurélie Bruno
  • Didier Ledoux
  • Bernard Lambermont
  • François Damas
  • Caroline Schnakers
  • Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse
  • Olivia Gosseries
  • Steven Laureys
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) has been proposed as an alternative for the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)/Glasgow Liège Scale (GLS) in the evaluation of consciousness in severely brain-damaged patients. We compared the FOUR and GLS/GCS in intensive care unit patients who were admitted in a comatose state.

Methods

FOUR and GLS evaluations were performed in randomized order in 176 acutely (<1 month) brain-damaged patients. GLS scores were transformed in GCS scores by removing the GLS brainstem component. Inter-rater agreement was assessed in 20% of the studied population (N = 35). A logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, and etiology was performed to assess the link between the studied scores and the outcome 3 months after injury (N = 136).

Results

GLS/GCS verbal component was scored 1 in 146 patients, among these 131 were intubated. We found that the inter-rater reliability was good for the FOUR score, the GLS/GCS. FOUR, GLS/GCS total scores predicted functional outcome with and without adjustment for age and etiology. 71 patients were considered as being in a vegetative/unresponsive state based on the GLS/GCS. The FOUR score identified 8 of these 71 patients as being minimally conscious given that these patients showed visual pursuit.

Conclusions

The FOUR score is a valid tool with good inter-rater reliability that is comparable to the GLS/GCS in predicting outcome. It offers the advantage to be performable in intubated patients and to identify non-verbal signs of consciousness by assessing visual pursuit, and hence minimal signs of consciousness (11% in this study), not assessed by GLS/GCS scales.

Keywords

Coma Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Glasgow Coma Scale Glasgow Liège Scale Vegetative state Minimally conscious state Neurological assessment Intensive care 

References

  1. 1.
    Jennett B, Plum F. Persistent vegetative state after brain damage. A syndrome in search of a name. Lancet. 1972;1:734–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laureys S, Celesia GG, Cohadon F, et al. Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome. BMC Med. 2010;8:68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, et al. The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology. 2002;58:349–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schnakers C, Chatelle C, Majerus S, Gosseries O, De Val M, Laureys S. Assessment and detection of pain in noncommunicative severely brain-injured patients. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010;10:1725–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demertzi A, Schnakers C, Ledoux D, et al. Different beliefs about pain perception in the vegetative and minimally conscious states: a European survey of medical and paramedical professionals. Prog Brain Res. 2009;177:329–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boly M, Faymonville ME, Schnakers C, et al. Perception of pain in the minimally conscious state with PET activation: an observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:1013–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schiff ND, Rodriguez-Moreno D, Kamal A, et al. fMRI reveals large-scale network activation in minimally conscious patients. Neurology. 2005;64:514–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laureys S, Perrin F, Bredart S. Self-consciousness in non-communicative patients. Conscious Cogn. 2007;16:722–41. discussion 742-725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laureys S, Piret S, Ledoux D. Quantifying consciousness. Lancet Neurol. 2005;4:789–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rordorf G, Koroshetz W, Efird JT, Cramer SC. Predictors of mortality in stroke patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:1301–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gotoh O, Tamura A, Yasui N, Suzuki A, Hadeishi H, Sano K. Glasgow Coma Scale in the prediction of outcome after early aneurysm surgery. Neurosurgery. 1996;39:19–24. discussion 24-15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tien HC, Cunha JR, Wu SN, et al. Do trauma patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 and bilateral fixed and dilated pupils have any chance of survival? J Trauma. 2006;60:274–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stocchetti N, Citerio G, Maas A, Andrews P, Teasdale G. Bryan Jennett and the field of traumatic brain injury. His intellectual and ethical heritage in neuro-intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:1774–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rowley G, Fielding K. Reliability and accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Scale with experienced and inexperienced users. Lancet. 1991;337:535–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Braakman R, et al. The European Brain Injury Consortium survey of head injuries. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1999;141:223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marion DW, Carlier PM. Problems with initial Glasgow Coma Scale assessment caused by prehospital treatment of patients with head injuries: results of a national survey. J Trauma. 1994;36:89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Born JD, Hans P, Dexters G, et al. Practical assessment of brain dysfunction in severe head trauma. Neurochirurgie. 1982;28:1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Balestreri M, Czosnyka M, Chatfield DA, et al. Predictive value of Glasgow Coma Scale after brain trauma: change in trend over the past ten years. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75:161–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benzer A, Mitterschiffthaler G, Marosi M, et al. Prediction of non-survival after trauma: Innsbruck Coma Scale. Lancet. 1991;338:977–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Starmark JE, Stalhammar D, Holmgren E, Rosander B. A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Reaction Level Scale (RLS85). J Neurosurg. 1988;69:699–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gill M, Windemuth R, Steele R, Green SM. A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale score to simplified alternative scores for the prediction of traumatic brain injury outcomes. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Ann Neurol. 2005;58:585–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet. 1975;1:480–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (2). N Engl J Med 1994;330:1572–1579.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolf CA, Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL. Further validation of the FOUR score coma scale by intensive care nurses. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:435–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akavipat P. Endorsement of the FOUR score for consciousness assessment in neurosurgical patients. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2009;49:565–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Idrovo L, Fuentes B, Medina J, et al. Validation of the FOUR Score (Spanish Version) in acute stroke: an interobserver variability study. Eur Neurol. 2010;63:364–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iyer VN, Mandrekar JN, Danielson RD, Zubkov AY, Elmer JL, Wijdicks EF. Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84:694–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fischer M, Ruegg S, Czaplinski A, et al. Inter-rater reliability of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cohen J. Interrater reliability and predictive validity of the FOUR score coma scale in a pediatric population. J Neurosci Nurs. 2009;41:261–7. quiz 268–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stead LG, Wijdicks EF, Bhagra A, et al. Validation of a new coma scale, the FOUR score, in the emergency department. Neurocrit Care. 2009;10:50–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Healey C, Osler TM, Rogers FB, et al. Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma. 2003;54:671–8. discussion 678–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eken C, Kartal M, Bacanli A, Eray O. Comparison of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score Coma Scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale in an emergency setting population. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009;16:29–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fugate JE, Rabinstein AA, Claassen DO, White RD, Wijdicks EF. The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after cardiac arrest. Neurocrit Care. 2010;13:205–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Born JD. The Glasgow-Liège Scale. Prognostic value and evaluation of motor response and brain stem reflexes after severe head injury. Acta Neurochir. 1988;95:49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Born JD, Albert A, Hans P, Bonnal J. Relative prognostic value of best motor response and brain stem reflexes in patients with severe head injury. Neurosurgery. 1985;16:595–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jennett B. Thirty years of the vegetative state: clinical, ethical and legal problems. Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:537–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Laureys S, Boly M. What is it like to be vegetative or minimally conscious? Curr Opin Neurol. 2007;20:609–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (1). N Engl J Med 1994;330:1499–1508.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schnakers C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Giacino J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurol. 2009;9:35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Laureys S, Pellas F, Van Eeckhout P, et al. The locked-in syndrome: what is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:495–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bernat JL. Current controversies in states of chronic unconsciousness. Neurology. 2010;75:S33–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schnakers C, Chatelle C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, et al. The Nociception Coma Scale: a new tool to assess nociception in disorders of consciousness. Pain. 2010;148:215–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schnakers C, Zasler ND. Pain assessment and management in disorders of consciousness. Curr Opin Neurol. 2007;20:620–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bruno MA, Gosseries O, Ledoux D, Hustinx R, Laureys S. Assessment of consciousness with electrophysiological and neurological imaging techniques. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011;17(2):146–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Aurélie Bruno
    • 1
  • Didier Ledoux
    • 1
  • Bernard Lambermont
    • 2
  • François Damas
    • 3
  • Caroline Schnakers
    • 1
  • Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse
    • 1
  • Olivia Gosseries
    • 1
  • Steven Laureys
    • 1
  1. 1.Coma Science Group, Cyclotron Research Centre and Neurology DepartmentUniversity and University Hospital of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Intensive Care DepartmentLiège University Hospital and University of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.Intensive Care Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional de la CitadelleUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations