Attaining an accurate diagnosis in the acute phase for severely brain-damaged patients presenting Disorders of Consciousness (DOC) is crucial for prognostic validity; such a diagnosis determines further medical management, in terms of therapeutic choices and end-of-life decisions. However, DOC evaluation based on validated scales, such as the Revised Coma Recovery Scale (CRS-R), can lead to an underestimation of consciousness and to frequent misdiagnoses particularly in cases of cognitive motor dissociation due to other aetiologies. The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical signs that lead to a more accurate consciousness assessment allowing more reliable outcome prediction. From the Unit of Acute Neurorehabilitation (University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland) between 2011 and 2014, we enrolled 33 DOC patients with a DOC diagnosis according to the CRS-R that had been established within 28 days of brain damage. The first CRS-R assessment established the initial diagnosis of Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome (UWS) in 20 patients and a Minimally Consciousness State (MCS) in the remaining13 patients. We clinically evaluated the patients over time using the CRS-R scale and concurrently from the beginning with complementary clinical items of a new observational Motor Behaviour Tool (MBT). Primary endpoint was outcome at unit discharge distinguishing two main classes of patients (DOC patients having emerged from DOC and those remaining in DOC) and 6 subclasses detailing the outcome of UWS and MCS patients, respectively. Based on CRS-R and MBT scores assessed separately and jointly, statistical testing was performed in the acute phase using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test; longitudinal CRS-R data were modelled with a Generalized Linear Model. Fifty-five per cent of the UWS patients and 77% of the MCS patients had emerged from DOC. First, statistical prediction of the first CRS-R scores did not permit outcome differentiation between classes; longitudinal regression modelling of the CRS-R data identified distinct outcome evolution, but not earlier than 19 days. Second, the MBT yielded a significant outcome predictability in the acute phase (p0.81). Third, a statistical comparison of the CRS-R subscales weighted by MBT became significantly predictive for DOC outcome (p<0.02). The association of MBT and CRS-R scoring improves significantly the evaluation of consciousness and the predictability of outcome in the acute phase. Subtle motor behaviour assessment provides accurate insight into the amount and the content of consciousness even in the case of cognitive motor dissociation.

Patients who experience severe brain injuries are at risk of secondary brain damage, because of delayed vasospasm and edema. Traditionally, many of these patients are kept on prolonged bed rest in order to maintain adequate cerebral blood flow, especially in the case of subarachnoid hemorrhage. On the other hand, prolonged bed rest carries important morbidity. There may be a clinical benefit in early mobilization and our hypothesis is that early gradual mobilization is safe in these patients. The aim of this study was to observe and quantify the changes in sympathetic activity, mainly related to stress, and blood pressure in gradual postural changes by the verticalization robot (Erigo®) and after training by a lower body ergometer (MOTOmed-letto®), after prolonged bed rest of minimum 7 days. Thirty patients with severe neurological injuries were randomized into 3 groups with different protocols of mobilization: Standard, MOTOmed-letto® or Erigo® protocol. We measured plasma catecholamines, metanephrines and blood pressure before, during and after mobilization. Blood pressure does not show any significant difference between the 3 groups. The analysis of the catecholamines suggests a significant increase in catecholamine production during Standard mobilization with physiotherapists and with MOTOmed-letto® and no changes with Erigo®. This preliminary prospective randomized study shows that the mobilization of patients with severe brain injuries by means of Erigo® does not increase the production of catecholamines. It means that Erigo® is a well-tolerated method of mobilization and can be considered a safe system of early mobilization of these patients. Further studies are required to validate our conclusions. The study was registered in the ISRCTN registry with the trial registration number ISRCTN56402432 . Date of registration: 08.03.2016. Retrospectively registered.

To investigate the functional and cognitive outcomes during early intensive neurorehabilitation and to compare the recovery patterns of patients presenting with cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), disorders of consciousness (DOC) and non-DOC. We conducted a single center observational cohort study of 141 patients with severe acquired brain injury, consecutively admitted to an acute neurorehabilitation unit. We divided patients into three groups according to initial neurobehavioral diagnosis at admission using the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) and the Motor Behavior Tool (MBT): potential clinical CMD, [N = 105]; DOC [N = 19]; non-DOC [N = 17]). Functional and cognitive outcomes were assessed at admission and discharge using the Glasgow Outcome Scale, the Early Rehabilitation Barthel Index, the Disability Rating Scale, the Rancho Los Amigos Levels of Cognitive Functioning, the Functional Ambulation Classification Scale and the modified Rankin Scale. Confirmed recovery of conscious awareness was based on CRS-R criteria. CMD patients were significantly associated with better functional outcomes and potential for improvement than DOC. Furthermore, outcomes of CMD patients did not differ significantly from those of non-DOC. Using the CRS-R scale only; approximatively 30% of CMD patients did not recover consciousness at discharge. Our findings support the fact that patients presenting with CMD condition constitute a separate category, with different potential for improvement and functional outcomes than patients suffering from DOC. This reinforces the need for CMD to be urgently recognized, as it may directly affect patient care, influencing life-or-death decisions.

Brain-injured patients in a state of cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) exhibit a lack of command following using conventional neurobehavioral examination tools but a high level of awareness and language processing when assessed using advanced imaging and electrophysiology techniques. Because of their behavioral unresponsiveness, patients with CMD may seem clinically indistinguishable from those with a true disorder of consciousness that affects awareness on a substantial level (coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness state, or minimally conscious state minus). Yet, by expanding the range of motor testing across limb, facial, and ocular motricity, we may detect subtle, purposeful movements even in the subset of patients classified as vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness state. We propose the term of clinical CMD to describe patients showing these slight but determined motor responses and exhibiting a characteristic akinetic motor behavior as opposed to a pyramidal motor system behavior. These patients may harbor hidden cognitive capabilities and significant potential for a good long-term outcome. Indeed, we envision CMD as ranging from complete (no motor response) to partial (subtle clinical motor response) forms, falling within a spectrum of progressively better motor output in patients with considerable cognitive capabilities. In addition to providing a decisional flowchart, we present this novel approach to classification as a graphical model that illustrates the range of clinical manifestations and recovery trajectories fundamentally differentiating true disorders of consciousness from the spectrum of CMD.

Bedside assessment of consciousness and awareness after a severe brain injury might be hampered by confounding clinical factors (i.e., pitfalls) interfering with the production of behavioral or motor responses to external stimuli. Despite the use of validated clinical scales, a high misdiagnosis rate is indeed observed. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 49 patients with severe brain injury admitted to an acute neuro-rehabilitation program. Patients’ behavior was assessed using the Motor Behavior Tool and Coma Recovery Scale Revised. All patients underwent systematic assessment for pitfalls including polyneuropathy and/or myopathy and/or myelopathy, major cranial nerve palsies, non-convulsive status epilepticus, aphasia (expressive or comprehensive), cortical blindness, thalamic involvement and frontal akinetic syndrome. A high prevalence (75%) of pitfalls potentially interfering with sensory afference (polyneuropathy, myopathy, myelopathy, and sensory aphasia), motor efference (polyneuropathy, myopathy, motor aphasia, and frontal akinetic syndrome), and intrinsic brain activity (thalamic involvement and epilepsy) was found. Nonetheless, the motor behavior tool identified residual cognition (i.e. a cognitive motor dissociation condition) regardless of the presence of these pitfalls in 70% of the patients diagnosed as unresponsive using the Coma Recovery Scale Revised. On one hand, pitfalls might contribute to misdiagnosis. On the other, it could be argued that they are clues for diagnosing cognitive motor dissociation rather than true disorders of consciousness given their prominent effect on the sensory–motor input–output balance.