4.5 Article

Long-Term Outcomes among Patients with Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13020194

关键词

disorders of consciousness; unresponsive wakefulness syndrome; minimal consciousness state; mortality; prognostic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study evaluated the long-term survival and functional outcomes of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (pDoC) 1-8 years after brain injuries. The presence of sleep spindles was found to be significantly associated with both long-term survival and functional outcomes in pDoC patients.
Purpose: To evaluate the long-term survival and functional outcomes of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (pDoC) 1-8 years after brain injuries. Methods: Retrospective study to assess the long-term survival and functional outcomes of patients with pDoC was conducted. We performed Cox regression and multivariate logistic regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for the outcome of survival and to identify risk factors of the functional outcome. Results: We recruited 154 patients with pDoC. The duration of follow-up from disease onset was 1-8 years. The median age was 46 years (IQR, 32-59), and 65.6% (n = 101) of them were men. During the follow-up period, one hundred and ten patients (71.4%) survived; among them, 52 patients had a good outcome. From the overall survival curve, the 1-, 3-, and 8-year survival rates of patients were about 80.5%, 72.0%, and 69.7%, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed a significant association between the lower APACHE II score (p = 0.005) (cut-off score >= 18) and the presence of sleep spindles (p = 0.001) with survival. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated a higher CRS-R score (cut-off score >= 7), and presence of sleep spindles were related to a favorable outcome among patients with pDoC. Conclusions: Sleep spindles are correlated with both long-term survival and long-term functional outcome in pDoC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据