Search

Severe brain injury can result in disorders of consciousness (DoC), including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, and minimally conscious state. Improved emergency and trauma medicine response, in addition to expanding efforts to prevent premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, has led to an increased number of patients with prolonged DoC. High-quality bedside care of patients with DoC is key to improving long-term functional outcomes. However, there is a paucity of DoC-specific evidence guiding clinicians on efficacious bedside care that can promote medical stability and recovery of consciousness. This Viewpoint describes the state of current DoC bedside care and identifies knowledge and practice gaps related to patient care with DoC collated by the Care of the Patient in Coma scientific workgroup as part of the Neurocritical Care Society's Curing Coma Campaign. The gap analysis identified and organized domains of bedside care that could affect patient outcomes: clinical expertise, assessment and monitoring, timing of intervention, technology, family engagement, cultural considerations, systems of care, and transition to the post-acute continuum. Finally, this Viewpoint recommends future research and education initiatives to address and improve the care of patients with DoC.

BackgroundOver the past 30 years, there have been significant advances in the understanding of the mechanisms associated with loss and recovery of consciousness following severe brain injury. This work has provided a strong grounding for the development of novel restorative therapeutic interventions. Although all interventions are aimed at modulating and thereby restoring brain function, the landscape of existing interventions encompasses a very wide scope of techniques and protocols. Despite vigorous research efforts, few approaches have been assessed with rigorous, high-quality randomized controlled trials. As a growing number of exploratory interventions emerge, it is paramount to develop standardized approaches to reporting results. The successful evaluation of novel interventions depends on implementation of shared nomenclature and infrastructure. To address this gap, the Neurocritical Care Society's Curing Coma Campaign convened nine working groups and charged them with developing common data elements (CDEs). Here, we report the work of the Therapeutic Interventions Working Group.MethodsThe working group reviewed existing CDEs relevant to therapeutic interventions within the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke database and reviewed the literature for assessing key areas of research in the intervention space. CDEs were then proposed, iteratively discussed and reviewed, classified, and organized in a case report form (CRF).ResultsWe developed a unified CRF, including CDEs and key design elements (i.e., methodological or protocol parameters), divided into five sections: (1) patient information, (2) general study information, (3) behavioral interventions, (4) pharmacological interventions, and (5) device interventions.ConclusionsThe newly created CRF enhances systematization of future work by proposing a portfolio of measures that should be collected in the development and implementation of studies assessing novel interventions intended to increase the level of consciousness or rate of recovery of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness.