Advertisement

A Novel Prognostic Approach to Predict Recovery in Patients with Chronic Disorders of Consciousness

  • Wangxiao Bao
  • Xiaoxia Li
  • Benyan LuoEmail author
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT
  • 38 Downloads

Severe brain injury can lead to acute or chronic disorders of consciousness (DOC), and the latter represents a more critical challenge in diagnosis and management. For most chronic unconsciousness survivors with preserved sleep-wake cycles, including vegetative state (VS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), levels of consciousness are commonly monitored and determined based on behavioral evidence. VS, also termed unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS), is characterized by complete absence of awareness and may be associated with poor recovery, while MCS exhibit discernible behavioral signs of environmental or self- awareness [1]. Since nearly 40% patients in MCS are initially misdiagnosed as VS/UWS due to the limitation of the existing diagnostic criterion, it is therefore necessary to define the accurate diagnostic and prognostic categorization for long-term outcome [2].

Chronic disorders of consciousness are mainly caused by traumatic or vascular brain injury, with a VS prevalence...

Notes

Acknowledgements

This Research Highlight was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81870817, and 81671143), the Science and Technology Plan of Zhejiang Province, China (2017C03011).

Reference

  1. 1.
    Bernat JL. Chronic disorders of consciousness. Lancet 2006, 367: 1181–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luaute J, Maucort-Boulch D, Tell L, Quelard F, Sarraf T, Iwaz J, et al. Long-term outcomes of chronic minimally conscious and vegetative states. Neurology 2010, 75: 246–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhao J. Disorders of Consciousness in China. Neurosci Bull 2018, 34: 605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song M, Yang Y, He J, Yang Z, Yu S, Xie Q, et al. Prognostication of chronic disorders of consciousness using brain functional networks and clinical characteristics. Elife 2018, 7. pii: e36173.  https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.36173.
  5. 5.
    Demertzi A, Antonopoulos G, Heine L, Voss HU, Crone JS, de Los Angeles C, et al. Intrinsic functional connectivity differentiates minimally conscious from unresponsive patients. Brain 2015, 138: 2619–2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vanhaudenhuyse A, Noirhomme Q, Tshibanda LJ, Bruno MA, Boveroux P, Schnakers C, et al. Default network connectivity reflects the level of consciousness in non-communicative brain-damaged patients. Brain 2010, 133: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ng KK, Lo JC, Lim JKW, Chee MWL, Zhou J. Reduced functional segregation between the default mode network and the executive control network in healthy older adults: A longitudinal study. Neuroimage 2016, 133: 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stender J, Gosseries O, Bruno MA, Charland-Verville V, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Demertzi A, et al. Diagnostic precision of PET imaging and functional MRI in disorders of consciousness: a clinical validation study. Lancet 2014, 384: 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sitt JD, King JR, El Karoui I, Rohaut B, Faugeras F, Gramfort A, et al. Large scale screening of neural signatures of consciousness in patients in a vegetative or minimally conscious state. Brain 2014, 137: 2258–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang T. Brainnetome: a new -ome to understand the brain and its disorders. Neuroimage 2013, 80: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, CAS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, First Affiliated Hospital, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain ScienceZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations