usually several hundred milliseconds after stimulation and are not strictly time locked to the stimulus onset. Long-latency auditory cortical potentials (N100, P150), the P300 response, and the mismatch negativity (MMN) ERPs have each shown some potential for providing evidence of recovery. The P300 response can be elicited by inclusion of an ‘‘oddball’’ tone in an otherwise monotonous presentation of repeated identical tones. The MMN is an early component of the auditory response to the oddball stimulus that is attention independent and reliably induced following the N100 auditory cortex potential, an early primary auditory evoked response. In a study of 346 patients in coma for 12 months with outcomes divided into VS versus all categories better than VS (including MCS), N100 and MMN were strong predictors of recovery past VS; no patient with MMN in this cohort remained in VS. If the electrophysiologic variables were combined with information about the pupillary light reflex, the probability of recovery past VS reached 89.9%.40 However, other studies have raised questions about the specificity of preserved ERP responses75 in VS.
MINIMALLY CONSCIOUS STATE
The minimally conscious state76 identifies a condition of severely impaired consciousness with minimal but definite behavioral evidence of self or environmental awareness. Table 9–12 provides the criteria for the diagnosis of MCS. Like VS, MCS often exists as a transitional state arising during recovery from coma or during the worsening of progressive neurologic disease. In some patients, however, it may be a permanent condition. A few studies have examined differences in outcome between VS and MCS. Giacino and Kalmar reported retrospective findings in 55 VS patients and 49 MCS patients evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following either traumatic or nontraumatic injuries.77 Both presented with similar levels of disability at 1 month postinjury. The MCS patients, however, had significantly better outcomes as measured by the Disability Rating Scale compared with outcomes for VS patients at 1 year, particularly in the TBI patients. Strauss and colleagues78 retrospectively studied life expectancy of a large number of children (ages 3 to 15) in VS (N ¼ 564) and
Table 9–12 Aspen Working Group Criteria for the Clinical Diagnosis of the Minimally Conscious State
Evidence of limited but clearly discernible self or environmental awareness on a reproducible or sustained basis, as demonstrated by one or more of the following behaviors:
1.Simple command following
2.Gestural or verbal ‘‘yes/no’’ responses (independent of accuracy)
3.Intelligible verbalization
4.Purposeful behavior including movements or affective behaviors in contingent relation to relevant stimuli. Examples include:
a.Appropriate smiling or crying to relevant visual or linguistic stimuli
b.Response to linguistic content of questions by vocalization or gesture
c.Reaching for objects in appropriate direction and location
d.Touching or holding objects by accommodating to size and shape
e.Sustained visual fixation or tracking as response to moving stimuli
From Giacino et al.,76 with permission.
MCS, dividing the latter into two groups: immobile MCS (N ¼ 705) and mobile MCS (3,806). A significant increase in the percentage of patients still alive at 8 years was noted for the mobile MCS group (81%) compared to theimmobileMCS(65%)ortheVS(63%)group; the latter two were statistically indistinguishable. Lammi and associates79 examined 18 MCS patients 2 to 5 years after injury and found a marked heterogeneity of outcome despite prolonged duration of MCS after TBI. Most of their patients regained functional independence, but there was a poor correlation between duration of MCS and outcome. In general, clinical and electrodiagnostic tests have not yet been developed for use in the diagnosis and prognosis of MCS outside of a research context (see below for discussion).
MCS also includes some forms of the clinical syndrome of akinetic mutism (Box 9–1) and other less well-characterized disorders of consciousness. At least two different identifiable groups of patients are considered exemplars of akinetic mutism. Although occasionally confused with VS, classical akinetic mutism resembles a state of constant hypervigilance. The patients appear attentive and vigilant but