View clinical trials related to Disorder of Consciousness.
Filter by:With the rapid development of life support technology, more and more people can survive severe brain injury. Some survivors regain consciousness after a period of coma, however, many patients develop prolonged disorders of consciousness (DOC), which poses a therapeutic challenge for clinicians and a heavy burden for their families. The investigators design an Electro-acupuncture to treat disorder of consciousness (AcuDoc) trial with the aim of validating the clinical effect of electroacupuncture in treating DOC and exploring its therapeutic mechanisms by integrating EEG, neuroimaging, evoked potential tests, and behavioral assessments.
The research focuses on establishing a system for detecting loss of consciousness, developing clinical prognostic and awakening-related brain function testing criteria.
Early prediction of outcomes after acute brain injury (ABI) remains a major unsolved problem. Presently, physicians make predictions using clinical examination, traditional scoring systems, and statistical models. In this study, we will use a novel technique, "SeeMe," to objectively assess the level of consciousness in patients suffering from comas following ABI. SeeMe is a program that quantifies total facial motion over time and compares the response after a spoken command (i.e. "open your eyes") to a pre-stimulus baseline.
The goal of this observational study is to compare Nociception Coma Scale-Revised Recorded (NCS-R) scores obtained with the standard pressure on fingernail bed (standard stimulus, SS) versus other personalized painful stimuli (PS), in non-communicative patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC), as indicated by professionals and caregivers involved in their care and rehabilitation. The study aims also to establish possible correlations between NCS-R and Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R.) The main question : an integrated patient-centered approach for assessment of the physical pain, in which clinical measures and behavioral observations will be integrated, to understand and manage the pain intensity, may improve treatment and rehabilitation outcome. Specifically, a new version of NCS-R, adapted with PS, may produce more intentional and specific responses to pain-inducing maneuvers. Investigating pain perception in non-communicative patients, through recognition of a personalized source of nociception and pain, may avoid non specific, useless and harmful noxious tests (as with standard pain scales) and may provide tools for revealing nociception even in the lack of any response to standard clinical evaluation. Question 1: the superiority of personalized painful stimulus a standard painful stimulation in nin communicative patients. Question 2: the parallel recovery of painful stimuli responsiveness and consciousness Participants will Responsiveness and pain perception will be assessed respectively with the CRS-R and the NCS-R. Pain responses will be assessed by means of standard stimulus (NCS-R-SS, as used in the CRS-R) and personalized stimulation (NCS-R-PS), at admission and discharge. CRS-R will be administered within the first month after admission, at least 5 times in different days, choosing the highest score as reference and repeated during recovery of consciousness or discharge. After informed consent by patient's legal representative or the primary caregiver, for the purpose of the study, caregivers (including relatives, nurses, therapists, physicians) will be asked to record all manoeuvres they feel are associated with potential pain, with a window of observation of the rehabilitation and nursing staff of around one week to identify the personalized painful stimulus (about the second week after admission at the rehabilitation ward). Amongst them, the manoeuvres that consistently over time induced the most motor/behaviour responses suggestive of pain perception, reported at least by 2 members of the rehabilitation staff or by one of them and one caregiver, will be chosen as the personalized stimulus (PS). NCS-R with standard stimulus (NCS-R-SS) and with personalized stimulus (NCS-R-PS), will be recorded within 30 days after admission, alternating the order of the 2 painful stimulations; CRS-R will be recorded accordingly, in parallel to NCS-R-SS and NCS-R-PS and will be blindly recorded, at the same time, by two different rehabilitation staff members, to assess inter-rater reliability, whereas two of them will repeat both NCS-R_SS and NCS-R-PS during the same week to assess intra-rater reliability of both NCS-R-SS and NCS-R-PS, with an interval of at least 6 hours from the last pain killer or anti-spastic drugs administration, including GABAergic, anti-inflammatory drugs or opiates. Both CRS-R and NCS-R (SS and PS) will be repeated 1 month and 3 months after the first assessment with the same procedures of the first time.
The goal of this observational retrospective study is to investigate and compare the clinical evolution of a sample of patients with the diagnosis of MCS+ versus MCS- according to the CRS-R. The main questions it aims to answer are the presence of differences in the likelihood of emergence from the MCS (EMCS) between these two groups and in the progress of disability and functional independence after the EMCS.
Background: Despite established evidence supporting the use of tDCS in the adult patient with disorders of consciousness, its use in paediatric patients with brain injury is still limited. Regarding the use of tDCS in paediatric patients with DoC, the scientific evidence still appears to be preliminary about the safety profile and requires further data before investigating efficacy on a broad scale. In fact, although the method has been shown to be safe in other clinical conditions, efficacy and tolerability in children with DoC may vary significantly depending on differences in activation threshold and the presence of underlying pathological electrical activity The implementation of clinical trials investigating the safety and tolerability of tDCS in paediatric patients with DoC now represents an essential first step for a future determination of the efficacy of this method in a population for which therapeutic options are currently extremely limited Objective: The study aim to verify the safety of tDCS treatment and to evaluate the effectiveness of stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex by tDCS in promoting improvement in the level of consciousness in paediatric patients with Disorders of Consciousness. Method: in this mono-center, randomised, double blind cross-over controlled pilot study, real or sham tDCS were applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal (DLPF) cortex of paediatric patients with disorders of consciousness for two weeks, followed by two weeks of washout, then real or sham tDCS were applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal (DLPF) cortex for other two weeks, followed by another two weeks of washout.
This study first aims to validate the feasibility of a multimodal 5-day 20-minute tACS protocol in subacute brain-injured patients with a disorder of consciousness during their ICU stay, and conduct a clinical pilot study (validation phase). Upon completion of this validation phase and according to obtained results, a randomized clinical trial will be conducted to compare the effects of the 5-day active 10Hz-tACS protocol with a 5-day sham-tACS protocol on brain dynamics modulation. This study will also compare intervention conditions on recovery of consciousness, cognition and function using short-term and long-term measurements.
A randomized controlled study was conducted to explore the efficacy of early transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to promote wakefulness in patients with disorder of consciousness (DOC). In order to improve the prognosis of DOC patients with nontraumatic brain injury, we compared the effects of tDCS and rTMS on clinical behavior and neurophysiological performance, and selected a wake-up technique that could improve the prognosis of DOC patients with nontraumatic brain injury as early as possible, so as to reduce the pain of patients and their loved ones, and to reduce the economic burden of society and families.
Background: The Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) is the most recommended instrument to examine the neurobehavioral condition of individuals with disorders of consciousness (DOCs). Different studies have investigated the prognostic value of the information provided by the conventional administration of the scale, while other measures derived from the scale have been proposed to improve the prognosis of DOCs. However, the heterogeneity of the data used in the different studies prevents a reliable comparison of the identified predictors and measures. Objectives: This study investigates which information derived from the CRS-R provides the most reliable prediction of both the neurobehavioral state and recovery of consciousness at the discharge of a long-term neurorehabilitation program. Methods: The clinical records of 171 individuals with DOCs admitted to an inpatient neurorehabilitation program for a minimum of 3 months were used to implement machine learning classifiers that were trained to predict the neurobehavioral state and recovery of consciousness at discharge.
The management of patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) represents a topic of great importance and topicality in the medical-scientific field because of the complexity and extent of associated disabilities and the difficulty in identifying effective therapeutic approaches. Despite significant advances in neuroscience, much remains to be elucidated about the mechanisms that regulate consciousness, and which of these to act on to stimulate plasticity and thus promote responsiveness and functional recovery in patients. Evidence on treatments that promote arousal and communication skills in individuals with DoC is still limited. Among the possible interventions proposed in the literature, sensory stimulation would act by stimulating synaptic plasticity, counteracting the sensory deprivation to which these patients are exposed. Published studies on the topic have produced results that are not unique and difficult to compare across different stimulation protocols (content, intensity, frequency, modality), settings and patient populations.