Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment

Caroline Schnakers, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Joseph Giacino, Manfredi Ventura, Melanie Boly, Steve Majerus, Gustave Moonen, Steven Laureys, Caroline Schnakers, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Joseph Giacino, Manfredi Ventura, Melanie Boly, Steve Majerus, Gustave Moonen, Steven Laureys

Abstract

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.

References

    1. The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (1) N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1499–1508.
    1. Giacino J, Ashwal S, Childs N, Cranford R, Jennett B, Katz DI, Kelly JP, Rosenberg JH, Whyte J, Zafonte RD, et al. The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology. 2002;58:349–353.
    1. Majerus S, Gill-Thwaites H, Andrews K, Laureys S. Behavioral evaluation of consciousness in severe brain damage. Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:397–413.
    1. Gill-Thwaites H. Lotteries, loopholes and luck: misdiagnosis in the vegetative state patient. Brain Inj. 2006;20:1321–1328.
    1. Childs NL, Mercer WN, Childs HW. Accuracy of diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Neurology. 1993;43:1465–1467.
    1. Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, Littlewood C. Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ. 1996;313:13–16.
    1. Andrews K. Medical decision making in the vegetative state: withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. Neuro Rehabilitation. 2004;19:299–304.
    1. Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, Damas P, Lambermont B, Del Fiore G, Degueldre C, Aerts J, Luxen A, Franck G, et al. Cortical processing of noxious somatosensory stimuli in the persistent vegetative state. Neuroimage. 2002;17:732–741.
    1. Boly M, Faymonville ME, Schnakers C, Peigneux P, Lambermont B, Phillips C, Lancellotti P, Luxen A, Lamy M, Moonen G, et al. Perception of pain in the minimally conscious state with PET activation: an observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:1013–1020.
    1. Giacino JT. The vegetative and minimally conscious states: consensus-based criteria for establishing diagnosis and prognosis. Neuro Rehabilitation. 2004;19:293–298.
    1. Jennett B. 30 years of the vegetative state: clinical, ethical and legal problems. In: Laureys S, editor. The boundaries of consciousness: neurobiology and neuropathology. Vol. 150. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 541–548.
    1. Giacino J, Kalmar K, Whyte J. The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:2020–2029.
    1. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81–84.
    1. Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: The FOUR score. Ann Neurol. 2005;58:585–593.
    1. Shiel A, Horn SA, Wilson BA, Watson MJ, Campbell MJ, McLellan DL. The Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) main scale: a preliminary report on a scale to assess and monitor patient recovery after severe head injury. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:408–416.
    1. Schnakers C, Giacino J, Kalmar K, Piret S, Lopez E, Boly M, Malone R, Laureys S. Does the FOUR score correctly diagnose the vegetative and minimally conscious states? Ann Neurol. 2006;60:744–745. author reply 745.
    1. Schnakers C, Majerus S, Giacino J, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Bruno M, Boly M, Moonen G, Damas P, Lambermont B, Lamy M, et al. A French validation study of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) Brain Injury. 2008;22:786–792.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다