Search

Covert cognition in patients with disorders of consciousness represents a real diagnostic conundrum for clinicians. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to identify clinical and demographic variables that are more likely to be associated with responding to an active paradigm. Among 2018 citations found on PubMed, 60 observational studies were found relevant. Based on the QUADAS-2, 49 studies were considered. Data from 25 publications were extracted and included in the meta-analysis. Most of these studies used electrophysiology as well as counting tasks or mental imagery. According to our statistical analysis, patients clinically diagnosed as being in a vegetative state and in a minimally conscious state minus (MCS−) show similar likelihood in responding to active paradigm and responders are most likely suffering from a traumatic brain injury. In the future, multi-centric studies should be performed in order to increase sample size, with similar methodologies and include structural and functional neuroimaging in order to identify cerebral markers related to such a challenging diagnosis.

The evaluation of the level of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) is primarily based on behavioural assessments. Patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) do not show any sign of awareness of their environment, while minimally conscious state (MCS) patients show reproducible but fluctuating signs of awareness. Some patients, although with remaining cognitive abilities, are not able to exhibit overt voluntary responses at the bedside and may be misdiagnosed as UWS. Several studies investigated functional neuroimaging and neurophysiology as an additional tool to evaluate the level of consciousness and to detect covert command following in DOC. Most of these studies are based on auditory stimulation, neglecting patients suffering from decreased or absent hearing abilities. In the present study, we aim to assess the response to a P3-based paradigm in 40 patients with DOC and 12 healthy participants using auditory (AEP) and vibrotactile (VTP) stimulation. To this end, an EEG-based brain-computer interface was used at DOC patient’s bedside. We compared the significance of the P3 performance (i.e., the interpretation of significance of the evoked P3 response) as obtained by ‘direct processing’ (i.e., theoretical-based significance threshold) and ‘offline processing’ (i.e., permutation-based single subject level threshold). We evaluated whether the P3 performances were dependent on clinical variables such as diagnosis (UWS and MCS), aetiology and time since injury. Last we tested the dependency of AEP and VTP performances at the single subject level. Direct processing tends to overestimate P3 performance. We did not find any difference in the presence of a P3 performance according to the level of consciousness (UWS vs. MCS) or the aetiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic brain injury). The performance achieved at the AEP paradigm was independent from what was achieved at the VTP paradigm, indicating that some patients performed better on the AEP task while others performed better on the VTP task. Our results support the importance of using multimodal approaches in the assessment of DOC patients in order to optimise the evaluation of patient’s abilities.

Background. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) was reported to promote the recovery of signs of consciousness in some patients in a minimally conscious state (MCS), but its electrophysiological effects on brain activity remain poorly understood. Objective. We aimed to assess behavioral (using the Coma Recovery Scale—Revised; CRS-R) and neurophysiological effects (using high density electroencephalography; hdEEG) of lDLPFC-tDCS in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (DOC). Methods. In a double-blind, sham-controlled, crossover design, one active and one sham tDCS (2 mA, 20 min) were delivered in a randomized order. Directly before and after tDCS, 10 min of hdEEG were recorded and the CRS-R was administered. Results. Thirteen patients with severe brain injury were enrolled in the study. We found higher relative power at the group level after the active tDCS session in the alpha band in central regions and in the theta band over the frontal and posterior regions (uncorrected results). Higher weighted symbolic mutual information (wSMI) connectivity was found between left and right parietal regions, and higher fronto-parietal weighted phase lag index (wPLI) connectivity was found, both in the alpha band (uncorrected results). At the group level, no significant treatment effect was observed. Three patients showed behavioral improvement after the active session and one patient improved after the sham. Conclusion. We provide preliminary indications that neurophysiological changes can be observed after a single session of tDCS in patients with prolonged DOC, although they are not necessarily paralleled with significant behavioral improvements.