4.6 Article

Significance of multiple neurophysiological measures in patients with chronic disorders of consciousness

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 126, 期 3, 页码 558-564

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.07.004

关键词

Disorders of consciousness; Evoked potentials; EEG; Relative power; Sleep score; Cluster analysis

资金

  1. healthcare grant from Regione Lombardia [IX/000407-05/08/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to verify the value of multiple neurophysiological tests in classifying disorders of consciousness (DOCs) in patients in a chronic vegetative or minimal consciousness state categorised on the basis of the Coma Recovery Scale (CRS). Methods: The study included 142 patients, all of whom underwent long (18 h) EEG-polygraphic recordings including one night. The EEG was scored using the Synek scale and sleep patterns using an arbitrary scale. Absolute total power and relative EEG power were evaluated in different frequency bands. Multimodal evoked potentials (EPs), including auditory event-related potentials, were also evaluated and scored. Results: The most information came from the combined multimodal EPs and sleep EEG scores. A two-step cluster analysis based on the collected information allowed a satisfactory evaluation of DOC severity. Spectral EEG properties seemed to be significantly related to DOC classes and CRS scores, but did not seem to make any significant additional contribution to DOC classification. Conclusions: Multiple electrophysiological evaluations based on EEG, sleep polygraphic recordings and multimodal EPs are helpful in assessing DOC severity and residual functioning in patients with chronic DOCs. Significance: Simple electrophysiological measures that can be easily applied at patients' bedsides can significantly contribute to the recognition of DOC severity in chronic patients surviving a severe brain injury. (C) 2014 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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