Leandro R D Sanz1,2, Aurore Thibaut1,2, Brian L Edlow3,4, Steven Laureys1,2, Olivia Gosseries1,2. 1. Coma Science Group, GIGA Consciousness, University of Liège. 2. Centre du Cerveau , University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 3. Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. 4. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuroimaging has acquired a prominent place in the assessment of disorders of consciousness (DoC). Rapidly evolving technologies combined with state-of-the-art data analyses open new horizons to probe brain activity, but selecting appropriate imaging modalities from the plethora of available techniques can be challenging for clinicians. This update reviews selected advances in neuroimaging that demonstrate clinical relevance and translational potential in the assessment of severely brain-injured patients with DoC. RECENT FINDINGS: Magnetic resonance imaging and high-density electroencephalography provide measurements of brain connectivity between functional networks, assessments of language function, detection of covert consciousness, and prognostic markers of recovery. Positron emission tomography can identify patients with preserved brain metabolism despite clinical unresponsiveness and can measure glucose consumption rates in targeted brain regions. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and near-infrared spectroscopy are noninvasive and practical tools with promising clinical applications. SUMMARY: Each neuroimaging technique conveys advantages and pitfalls to assess consciousness. We recommend a multimodal approach in which complementary techniques provide diagnostic and prognostic information about brain function. Patients demonstrating neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness may benefit from early adapted rehabilitation. Translating methodological advances to clinical care will require the implementation of recently published international guidelines and the integration of neuroimaging techniques into patient-centered decision-making algorithms.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuroimaging has acquired a prominent place in the assessment of disorders of consciousness (DoC). Rapidly evolving technologies combined with state-of-the-art data analyses open new horizons to probe brain activity, but selecting appropriate imaging modalities from the plethora of available techniques can be challenging for clinicians. This update reviews selected advances in neuroimaging that demonstrate clinical relevance and translational potential in the assessment of severely brain-injured patients with DoC. RECENT FINDINGS: Magnetic resonance imaging and high-density electroencephalography provide measurements of brain connectivity between functional networks, assessments of language function, detection of covert consciousness, and prognostic markers of recovery. Positron emission tomography can identify patients with preserved brain metabolism despite clinical unresponsiveness and can measure glucose consumption rates in targeted brain regions. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and near-infrared spectroscopy are noninvasive and practical tools with promising clinical applications. SUMMARY: Each neuroimaging technique conveys advantages and pitfalls to assess consciousness. We recommend a multimodal approach in which complementary techniques provide diagnostic and prognostic information about brain function. Patients demonstrating neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness may benefit from early adapted rehabilitation. Translating methodological advances to clinical care will require the implementation of recently published international guidelines and the integration of neuroimaging techniques into patient-centered decision-making algorithms.
Authors: Andrea Varrone; Susanne Asenbaum; Thierry Vander Borght; Jan Booij; Flavio Nobili; Kjell Någren; Jacques Darcourt; Ozlem L Kapucu; Klaus Tatsch; Peter Bartenstein; Koen Van Laere Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jan Claassen; Kevin Doyle; Adu Matory; Caroline Couch; Kelly M Burger; Angela Velazquez; Joshua U Okonkwo; Jean-Rémi King; Soojin Park; Sachin Agarwal; David Roh; Murad Megjhani; Andrey Eliseyev; E Sander Connolly; Benjamin Rohaut Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Camille Chatelle; Eric S Rosenthal; Yelena G Bodien; Camille A Spencer-Salmon; Joseph T Giacino; Brian L Edlow Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Andrea I Luppi; Michael M Craig; Ioannis Pappas; Paola Finoia; Guy B Williams; Judith Allanson; John D Pickard; Adrian M Owen; Lorina Naci; David K Menon; Emmanuel A Stamatakis Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Androu Abdalmalak; Daniel Milej; Lawrence C M Yip; Ali R Khan; Mamadou Diop; Adrian M Owen; Keith St Lawrence Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Jean Paul Medina; Anna Nigri; Mario Stanziano; Ludovico D'Incerti; Davide Sattin; Stefania Ferraro; Davide Rossi Sebastiano; Chiara Pinardi; Giorgio Marotta; Matilde Leonardi; Maria Grazia Bruzzone; Cristina Rosazza Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-03-07