Advertisement

Clinical Efficacy of Stimulation Programs Aimed at Reversing Coma or Vegetative State (VS) Following Traumatic Brain Injury

  • M. Vanier
  • J. Lamoureux
  • E. Dutil
  • S. Houde
Conference paper
Part of the Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements book series (NEUROCHIRURGICA, volume 79)

Abstract

«Therapy aimed at reversing the persistent vegetative state has not been successful» [2]. This is one conclusion of the report of the Multi-Society Task Force on PVS, which examined the medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (PVS). Although controversial, stimulation interventions for patients in PVS after an acute brain injury are an element of clinical practice in many countries, both for ethical and for scientific reasons, until enough knowledge is accumulated on this clinical entity. Present methods of treatment and their scientific rationale, expected levels of improvement in consciousness due to treatments and research methodologies for outcome studies appropriate for this rare and very variable clinical condition are not well known in the scientific literature. As Cope [4] mentioned in his analysis of the effectiveness of traumatic brain injury(TBI)rehabilitation in general, there is a large number of «outcome studies» ofTBIrehabilitation but the vast majority of these do little to help resolve the issue of efficacy, as they fail to address issues of pre-and post-treatment function, spontaneous recovery, definition of severity of injury and other methodological problems. This is particularly true for the stimulation programs for patients in PVS. Analysis of existing scientific publications on the efficacy of these interventions is required to disentangle the present situation in which clinicians feel the necessity to do something for their patients but are restrained by conflicting opinions in the literature and the resulting disinterest of researchers. A non-wanted effect of the absence of critical studies is a drastic change in hospital policy, resulting in the interruption of stimulation interventions without and before a demonstration of their efficacy/inefficacy. To bring additional light to this complex clinical situation, this paper critically reviews scientific publications addressing the clinical efficacy of stimulation interventions for patients in coma or in vegetative state.

Keywords

Traumatic Brain Injury Glasgow Coma Scale Vegetative State Sensory Stimulation Acute Brain Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrews FM, Klem L, Davidson TN, O’Malley PM, Rodgers WL (1981) A guide for selecting statistical techniques for analyzing social science data, 2nd edn. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 70 pagesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous (1994) Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (2). The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. New Engl J Med 330(21): 1572–1579Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansell BJ, Keenan JE (1989) The Western Neuro-Sensory Stimulation Profile. A tool for assessing slow-to-recover head injured patients. Arch Physic Med Rehab 70: 104–108Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cope DN (1995) The effectiveness of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: a review. Brain Inj 9(7): 649–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dalle Ore G, Bricolo A, Alexandre A (1980) The influence of the administration of pyritinol on the clinical course of traumatic coma. J Neurosurg Sci 24(1): 1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Rocco C, Maira G, Meglio M, Rossi GF (1974) L-Dopatreatment of comatose states due to cerebral lesions. Preliminary findings. J Neurosurg Sci 18(3): 169–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giacino JT (1996) Sensory stimulation: theoretical perspectives and the evidence for effectiveness. NeuroRehab 6: 69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall ME, MacDonald S, Young GC (1992) The effectiveness of directed multisensory stimulation versus non-directed stimulation in comatose CHI patients: pilot study of a single subject design. Brain Inj 6(5): 435–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassler R, Ore GD, Dieckmann G, Bricolo A, Dolce G (1969) Behavioural and EEG arousal induced by stimulation of unspecific projection systems in a patient with post-traumatic apallic syndrome. Electroencephalography Clin Neurophysiol 27(3): 306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hershberger SL, Wallace DD, Green SB, Marquis JG (1999) Meta-analysis of single-case designs. Statistical strategies for small sample research. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp 107–132Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horn S, Shiel A, McLellan L, Campbell M, Watson M, Wilson B (1993) A review of behavioural assessment scales for monitoring recovery in and after coma with pilot data on a new scale of visual awareness. Neuropsychol Rehab 3(2): 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson DA, Roethig Johnston K, Richards D (1993) Biochemical and physiological parameters of recovery in acute severe head injury: responses to multisensory stimulation. Brain Inj 7(6): 491–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones R, Hux K, Morton-Anderson KA, Knepper L (1994) Auditory stimulation effect on a comatose survivor of traumatic brain injury. Arch Physic Med Rehab 75(2): 164–171Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katayama Y, Tsubokawa T, Yamamoto T, Hirayama T, Miyazaki S, Koyama S (1991) Characterization and modification of brain activity with deep brain stimulation in patients in a persistent vegetative state: pain-related late positive component of cerebral evoked potential. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 14(1): 116–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kater KM (1989) Response of head-injured patients to sensory stimulation. West J Nursing Res 11(1): 20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lal S, Merbtiz CP, Grip JC (1988) Modification of function in head-injured patients with Sinemet. Brain Inj 2(3): 225–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malkmus D (1980) Cognitive assessment and goal setting. In Rehabilitation of the head injured adult: conprehensive management. Professional staff association of Rancho Los Amigos Hospital Inc, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLardy T, Mark V, Scoville W, Sweet W (1969) Pathology in diffuse projection system preventing brainstem-electrode arousal from traumatic coma. Confinia Neurol 31(4): 219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitchell S, Bradley VA, Welch JL, Britton PG (1990) Coma arousal procedure: a therapeutic intervention in the treatment of head injury. Brain Inj 4(3): 273–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierce JP, Lyle DM, Quine S, Evans NJ, Morris J, Fearnside MR (1990) The effectiveness of coma arousal intervention. Brain Inj 4(2): 191–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rader MA, Alston JB, Ellis DW (1989) Sensory stimulation of severely brain-injured patients. Brain Inj 3(2): 141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rapin PA, Richer E (1994) Intérêt d’une prise en compte de la dimension relationnelle lors de la prise en charge en phase d’éveil de coma. Journal de réadaptation médicale 14(3): 123–130Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sisson R (1990) Effects of auditory stimuli on comatose patients with head injury. Heart Lung 19(4): 373–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet, ii, 81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Kamp LJT, Bijleveld CCJH (1998) Methodological issues in longitudinal research. In: Longitudinal data analysis: designs, models and methods, In: Bijleverd CCJH, van der Kamp LJ, Mooijaart A, van der Kloot WA, van der Leeden R, van der Burg E (eds) Sage Publications, London, p 1–45Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Woerkom TCAM, Minderhoud JM, Gottschal T, Nicolai G (1982) Neurotransmitters in the treatment of patients with severe head injuries. Eur Neurol 21: 227–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Von Wild K, Simons P, Schoeppner H (1992) Effect of pyritinol on EEG and SSEP in comatose patients in the acute phase of intensive care therapy. Pharmacopsychiatry 25(3): 157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wood RL, Winkowski TB, Miller JL, Tierney L, Goldman L (1992) Evaluating sensory regulation as a method to improve awareness in patients with altered states of consciousness: a pilot study. Brain Inj 6(5): 411–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Vanier
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Lamoureux
    • 1
  • E. Dutil
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Houde
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de MontréalMontréalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Institut de réadaptation de MontréalMontréalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations