BackgroundPrevious studies have shown the prognostic value of stimulation elicited blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal in traumatic patients in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have focused on the relevance of etiology and level of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) when explaining the relationship between BOLD signal and both outcome and signal variability. We herein propose a study in a large sample of traumatic and non-traumatic DOC patients in order to ascertain the relevance of etiology and level of consciousness in the variability and prognostic value of a stimulation-elicited BOLD signal.Methods66 patients were included, and the response of each subject to his/her own name said by a familiar voice (SON-FV) was recorded using fMRI; 13 patients were scanned twice in the same day, respecting the exact same conditions in both cases. A behavioral follow-up program was carried out at 3, 6, and 12 months after scanning.ResultsOf the 39 VS/UWS patients, 12 (75%) out of 16 patients with higher level activation patterns recovered to minimally conscious state (MCS) or emergence from MCS (EMCS) and 17 (74%) out of 23 patients with lower level activation patterns or no activation had a negative outcome. Taking etiology into account for VS/UWS patients, a higher positive predictive value was assigned to traumatic patients, i.e., up to 92% (12/13) patients with higher level activation pattern achieved good recovery whereas 11 out of 13 (85%) non-traumatic patients with lower level activation or without activation had a negative clinical outcome. The reported data from visual analysis of fMRI activation patterns were corroborated using ROC curve analysis, which supported the correlation between auditory cortex activation volume and VS/UWS patients’ recovery. The average brain activity overlap in primary and secondary auditory cortices in patients scanned twice was 52%.ConclusionsThe activation type and volume in auditory cortex elicited by SON-FV significantly correlated with VS/UWS patients’ prognosis, particularly in patients with traumatic etiology, however, this could not be established in MCS patients. Repeated use of this simple fMRI task might help obtain more reliable prognostic information.

BackgroundVisual fixation plays a key role in the differentiation between vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness (VS/UWS) syndrome and minimally conscious state (MCS). However, the use of different stimuli changes the frequency of visual fixation occured in patients, thereby possibly affecting the accuracy of the diagnosis. In order to establish a standardized assessment of visual fixation in patients in disorders of consciousness (DOC), we compared the frequency of visual fixation elicited by mirror,a ball and a light.MethodVisual fixation was assessed in eighty-one post-comatose patients diagnosed with a MCS or VS/UWS. Occurrence of fixation to different stimuli was analysis used Chi-square testing.Result40 (49%) out of the 81 patients showed fixation to visual stimuli. Among those, significantly more patients (39, 48%) had visual fixation elicited by mirror compared to a ball (23, 28%) and mirror compared to a light (20, 25%).ConclusionThe use of a mirror during the assessment of visual fixation showed higher positive response rate, compared to other stimuli in eliciting a visual fixating response. Therefore, fixation elicited by a mirror can be a very sensitive and accurate test to differentiate the two disorders of consciousness.

Primary Objective: This study aims to validate the Chinese version of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). Methods: One hundred sixty-nine patients were assessed with both the CRS-R and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), diagnosed as being in unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS, formerly known as vegetative state), minimally conscious state (MCS), or emergence from MCS (EMCS). A subgroup of 50 patients has been assessed twice by the same rater, within 24 h. Patient outcome was documented six months after assessment. Results: The internal consistency for the CRS-R total score was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.84). Good test-retest reliability was obtained for CRS-R total score and subscale scores (intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.87 and ICC = 0.66-0.84, respectively). Inter-rater reliability was high (ICC = 0.719; p < 0.01). Concurrent validity was good between CRS-R total scale and GCS total scale. Diagnostic validity was excellent compared with GCS (emerged from UWS: 24%; emerged from MCS: 28%). When considering patient outcome, diagnostic validity was good. In addition, false-positive rates have been detected for both diagnoses. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the CRS-R is a reliable and sensitive tool and can discriminate patients in UWS, MCS, and EMCS successfully.

The Chinese version of the CRS-R is now available for use in clinical practise. Further investigations will nevertheless be needed in order to show that its psychometric properties are identical to the original English version.