Cognitive-motor dissociation and time to functional recovery in patients with acute brain injury in the USA: a prospective observational cohort study.
Journal
The Lancet. Neurology
ISSN: 1474-4465
Titre abrégé: Lancet Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139309
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
received:
24
07
2021
revised:
19
04
2022
accepted:
04
05
2022
entrez:
16
7
2022
pubmed:
17
7
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recovery trajectories of clinically unresponsive patients with acute brain injury are largely uncertain. Brain activation in the absence of a behavioural response to spoken motor commands can be detected by EEG, also known as cognitive-motor dissociation. We aimed to explore the role of cognitive-motor dissociation in predicting time to recovery in patients with acute brain injury. In this observational cohort study, we prospectively studied two independent cohorts of clinically unresponsive patients (aged ≥18 years) with acute brain injury. Machine learning was applied to EEG recordings to diagnose cognitive-motor dissociation by detecting brain activation in response to verbal commands. Survival statistics and shift analyses were applied to the data to identify an association between cognitive-motor dissociation and time to and magnitude of recovery. The prediction accuracy of the model that was built using the derivation cohort was assessed using the validation cohort. Functional outcomes of all patients were assessed with the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) at hospital discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months after injury. Patients who underwent withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies were censored, and death was treated as a competing risk. Between July 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2021, we screened 598 patients with acute brain injury and included 193 (32%) patients, of whom 100 were in the derivation cohort and 93 were in the validation cohort. At 12 months, 28 (15%) of 193 unresponsive patients had a GOS-E score of 4 or above. Cognitive-motor dissociation was seen in 27 (14%) patients and was an independent predictor of shorter time to good recovery (hazard ratio 5·6 [95% CI 2·5-12·5]), as was underlying traumatic brain injury or subdural haematoma (4·4 [1·4-14·0]), a Glasgow Coma Scale score on admission of greater than or equal to 8 (2·2 [1·0-4·7]), and younger age (1·0 [1·0-1·1]). Among patients discharged home or to a rehabilitation setting, those diagnosed with cognitive-motor dissociation consistently had higher scores on GOS-E indicating better functional recovery compared with those without cognitive-motor dissociation, which was seen as early as 3 months after the injury (odds ratio 4·5 [95% CI 2·0-33·6]). Recovery trajectories of clinically unresponsive patients diagnosed with cognitive-motor dissociation early after brain injury are distinctly different from those without cognitive-motor dissociation. A diagnosis of cognitive-motor dissociation could inform the counselling of families of clinically unresponsive patients, and it could help clinicians to identify patients who will benefit from rehabilitation. US National Institutes of Health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Recovery trajectories of clinically unresponsive patients with acute brain injury are largely uncertain. Brain activation in the absence of a behavioural response to spoken motor commands can be detected by EEG, also known as cognitive-motor dissociation. We aimed to explore the role of cognitive-motor dissociation in predicting time to recovery in patients with acute brain injury.
METHODS
In this observational cohort study, we prospectively studied two independent cohorts of clinically unresponsive patients (aged ≥18 years) with acute brain injury. Machine learning was applied to EEG recordings to diagnose cognitive-motor dissociation by detecting brain activation in response to verbal commands. Survival statistics and shift analyses were applied to the data to identify an association between cognitive-motor dissociation and time to and magnitude of recovery. The prediction accuracy of the model that was built using the derivation cohort was assessed using the validation cohort. Functional outcomes of all patients were assessed with the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) at hospital discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months after injury. Patients who underwent withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies were censored, and death was treated as a competing risk.
FINDINGS
Between July 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2021, we screened 598 patients with acute brain injury and included 193 (32%) patients, of whom 100 were in the derivation cohort and 93 were in the validation cohort. At 12 months, 28 (15%) of 193 unresponsive patients had a GOS-E score of 4 or above. Cognitive-motor dissociation was seen in 27 (14%) patients and was an independent predictor of shorter time to good recovery (hazard ratio 5·6 [95% CI 2·5-12·5]), as was underlying traumatic brain injury or subdural haematoma (4·4 [1·4-14·0]), a Glasgow Coma Scale score on admission of greater than or equal to 8 (2·2 [1·0-4·7]), and younger age (1·0 [1·0-1·1]). Among patients discharged home or to a rehabilitation setting, those diagnosed with cognitive-motor dissociation consistently had higher scores on GOS-E indicating better functional recovery compared with those without cognitive-motor dissociation, which was seen as early as 3 months after the injury (odds ratio 4·5 [95% CI 2·0-33·6]).
INTERPRETATION
Recovery trajectories of clinically unresponsive patients diagnosed with cognitive-motor dissociation early after brain injury are distinctly different from those without cognitive-motor dissociation. A diagnosis of cognitive-motor dissociation could inform the counselling of families of clinically unresponsive patients, and it could help clinicians to identify patients who will benefit from rehabilitation.
FUNDING
US National Institutes of Health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35841909
pii: S1474-4422(22)00212-5
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00212-5
pmc: PMC9476646
mid: NIHMS1825236
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
704-713Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS106014
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K23 HL151901
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R21 NS113055
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL153311
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R56 HL153311
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R03 NS112760
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests DR is supported by grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH; HL151901). SA is supported by grant funding from the NIH (HL153311). SP is supported by grant funding from the NIH (NS113055). JC is a minority shareholder at iCE Neurosystems and is supported by grant funding from the NIH (NS106014, NS112760), and the McDonnell Foundation. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 27;380(26):2497-2505
pubmed: 31242361
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1981 Apr;44(4):285-93
pubmed: 6453957
Ann Neurol. 2017 Jun;81(6):883-889
pubmed: 28543735
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Jan;27(1):35-44
pubmed: 22460612
Stroke. 2012 Mar;43(3):664-9
pubmed: 22343650
Neurocrit Care. 2021 Jul;35(Suppl 1):4-23
pubmed: 34236619
BMC Neurol. 2009 Jul 21;9:35
pubmed: 19622138
Neurocrit Care. 2021 Jul;35(Suppl 1):55-67
pubmed: 34236623
N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 9;354(6):588-600
pubmed: 16467546
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 May;87(5):485-92
pubmed: 26139551
Nat Rev Neurol. 2021 Mar;17(3):135-156
pubmed: 33318675
Neurology. 1993 Aug;43(8):1465-7
pubmed: 8350997
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Mar;98:336-346
pubmed: 30550859
J Neurotrauma. 2010 May;27(5):843-52
pubmed: 20334503
BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):13-6
pubmed: 8664760
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Dec;85(12):2020-9
pubmed: 15605342
Neurology. 2010 Jul 20;75(3):239-45
pubmed: 20554941
Pharm Stat. 2022 Jan;21(1):38-54
pubmed: 34231308
Prog Brain Res. 2009;177:73-88
pubmed: 19818896
J Neurotrauma. 2012 Jan 1;29(1):59-65
pubmed: 21663544
Crit Care Med. 2012 Apr;40(4):1150-6
pubmed: 22020245
Lancet. 2011 Dec 17;378(9809):2088-94
pubmed: 22078855
JAMA Neurol. 2021 May 1;78(5):548-557
pubmed: 33646273
J Neurotrauma. 2019 Apr 1;36(7):1136-1146
pubmed: 30226400
Biometrics. 2015 Mar;71(1):102-113
pubmed: 25311240
Biometrics. 2011 Jun;67(2):661-70
pubmed: 21155744
Neurology. 2018 Sep 4;91(10):450-460
pubmed: 30089618
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Aug;39(8):1337-51
pubmed: 23653183
Brain. 2017 Sep 1;140(9):2399-2414
pubmed: 29050383
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131