Bodien Yelena G, Giacino Joseph T, Edlow Brian L
Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, and Laboratory for NeuroImaging of Coma and Consciousness, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Front Neurol. 2017 Dec 18;8:688. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00688. eCollection 2017.
Severe traumatic brain injury impairs arousal and awareness, the two components of consciousness. Accurate diagnosis of a patient's level of consciousness is critical for determining treatment goals, access to rehabilitative services, and prognosis. The bedside behavioral examination, the current clinical standard for diagnosis of disorders of consciousness, is prone to misdiagnosis, a finding that has led to the development of advanced neuroimaging techniques aimed at detection of conscious awareness. Although a variety of paradigms have been used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reveal covert consciousness, the relative accuracy of these paradigms in the patient population is unknown. Here, we compare the rate of covert consciousness detection by hand squeezing and tennis playing motor imagery paradigms in 10 patients with traumatic disorders of consciousness [six male, six acute, mean ± SD age = 27.9 ± 9.1 years, one coma, four unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, two minimally conscious without language function, and three minimally conscious with language function, per bedside examination with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R)]. We also tested the same paradigms in 10 healthy subjects (nine male, mean ± SD age = 28.5 ± 9.4 years). In healthy subjects, the hand squeezing paradigm detected covert command following in 7/10 and the tennis playing paradigm in 9/10 subjects. In patients who followed commands on the CRS-R, the hand squeezing paradigm detected covert command following in 2/3 and the tennis playing paradigm in 0/3 subjects. In patients who did not follow commands on the CRS-R, the hand squeezing paradigm detected command following in 1/7 and the tennis playing paradigm in 2/7 subjects. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (ACC) of detecting covert command following in patients who demonstrated this behavior on the CRS-R was 66.7, 85.7, and 80% for the hand squeezing paradigm and 0, 71.4, and 50% for the tennis playing paradigm, respectively. Overall, the tennis paradigm performed better than the hand squeezing paradigm in healthy subjects, but in patients, the hand squeezing paradigm detected command following with greater ACC. These findings indicate that current fMRI motor imagery paradigms frequently fail to detect command following and highlight the need for paradigm optimization to improve the accuracy of covert consciousness detection.
重度创伤性脑损伤会损害觉醒和意识,这是意识的两个组成部分。准确诊断患者的意识水平对于确定治疗目标、获得康复服务以及预后至关重要。床边行为检查是目前诊断意识障碍的临床标准,容易出现误诊,这一发现促使了旨在检测意识觉知的先进神经成像技术的发展。尽管功能磁共振成像(fMRI)中使用了多种范式来揭示隐性意识,但这些范式在患者群体中的相对准确性尚不清楚。在此,我们比较了10例创伤性意识障碍患者(6例男性,6例急性,平均±标准差年龄=27.9±9.1岁,1例昏迷,4例无反应觉醒综合征,2例无语言功能的最低意识状态,3例有语言功能的最低意识状态,根据修订的昏迷恢复量表(CRS-R)进行床边检查)通过手部挤压和网球运动想象范式检测隐性意识的比率。我们还在10名健康受试者(9例男性,平均±标准差年龄=28.5±9.4岁)中测试了相同的范式。在健康受试者中,手部挤压范式在7/10的受试者中检测到隐性指令跟随,网球运动想象范式在9/10的受试者中检测到。在CRS-R上能听从指令的患者中,手部挤压范式在2/3的受试者中检测到隐性指令跟随,网球运动想象范式在0/3的受试者中检测到。在CRS-R上不能听从指令的患者中,手部挤压范式在1/7的受试者中检测到指令跟随,网球运动想象范式在2/7的受试者中检测到。在CRS-R上表现出这种行为的患者中,检测隐性指令跟随的敏感性、特异性和准确性(ACC),手部挤压范式分别为66.7%、85.7%和80%,网球运动想象范式分别为0%、71.4%和50%。总体而言网球范式在健康受试者中表现优于手部挤压范式,但在患者中,手部挤压范式检测指令跟随的ACC更高。这些发现表明当前的fMRI运动想象范式经常无法检测到指令跟随,并强调需要优化范式以提高隐性意识检测的准确性。