Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the posterior parietal cortex improves functional recovery in nonresponsive patients: A crossover, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study

To determine the measurement properties and diagnostic utility of the JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). Analysis of interrater and test-retest reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Acute inpatient brain injury rehabilitation hospital. Convenience sample of 80 patients with severe acquired brain injury admitted to an inpatient Coma Intervention Program with a diagnosis of either vegetative state (VS) or minimally conscious state (MCS). Not applicable. The CRS-R, the JFK Coma Recovery Scale (CRS), and the Disability Rating Scale (DRS). Interrater and test-retest reliability were high for CRS-R total scores. Subscale analysis showed moderate to high interrater and test-retest agreement although systematic differences in scoring were noted on the visual and oromotor/verbal subscales. CRS-R total scores correlated significantly with total scores on the CRS and DRS indicating acceptable concurrent validity. The CRS-R was able to distinguish 10 patients in an MCS who were otherwise misclassified as in a VS by the DRS. The CRS-R can be administered reliably by trained examiners and repeated measurements yield stable estimates of patient status. CRS-R subscale scores demonstrated good agreement across raters and ratings but should be used cautiously because some scores were underrepresented in the current study. The CRS-R appears capable of differentiating patients in an MCS from those in a VS.

Background Some patients awaken from coma (that is, open the eyes) but remain unresponsive (that is, only showing reflex movements without response to command). This syndrome has been coined vegetative state. We here present a new name for this challenging neurological condition: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (abbreviated UWS). Discussion Many clinicians feel uncomfortable when referring to patients as vegetative. Indeed, to most of the lay public and media vegetative state has a pejorative connotation and seems inappropriately to refer to these patients as being vegetable-like. Some political and religious groups have hence felt the need to emphasize these vulnerable patients' rights as human beings. Moreover, since its first description over 35 years ago, an increasing number of functional neuroimaging and cognitive evoked potential studies have shown that physicians should be cautious to make strong claims about awareness in some patients without behavioral responses to command. Given these concerns regarding the negative associations intrinsic to the term vegetative state as well as the diagnostic errors and their potential effect on the treatment and care for these patients (who sometimes never recover behavioral signs of consciousness but often recover to what was recently coined a minimally conscious state) we here propose to replace the name. Conclusion Since after 35 years the medical community has been unsuccessful in changing the pejorative image associated with the words vegetative state, we think it would be better to change the term itself. We here offer physicians the possibility to refer to this condition as unresponsive wakefulness syndrome or UWS. As this neutral descriptive term indicates, it refers to patients showing a number of clinical signs (hence syndrome) of unresponsiveness (that is, without response to commands) in the presence of wakefulness (that is, eye opening).

A group of European experts was commissioned to establish guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) from evidence published up until March 2014, regarding pain, movement disorders, stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, tinnitus, depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, craving/addiction, and conversion. Despite unavoidable inhomogeneities, there is a sufficient body of evidence to accept with level A (definite efficacy) the analgesic effect of high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the pain and the antidepressant effect of HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). A Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for the antidepressant effect of low-frequency (LF) rTMS of the right DLPFC, HF-rTMS of the left DLPFC for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and LF-rTMS of contralesional M1 in chronic motor stroke. The effects of rTMS in a number of indications reach level C (possible efficacy), including LF-rTMS of the left temporoparietal cortex in tinnitus and auditory hallucinations. It remains to determine how to optimize rTMS protocols and techniques to give them relevance in routine clinical practice. In addition, professionals carrying out rTMS protocols should undergo rigorous training to ensure the quality of the technical realization, guarantee the proper care of patients, and maximize the chances of success. Under these conditions, the therapeutic use of rTMS should be able to develop in the coming years. Copyright © 2014 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.