Assessing the Severity of Traumatic Brain Injury-Time for a Change?

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been described to be man's most complex disease, in man's most complex organ. Despite this vast complexity, variability, and individuality, we still classify the severity of TBI based on non-specific, often unreliable, and pathophysiologically poorly understood measures. Current classifications are primarily based on clinical evaluations, which are non-specific and poorly predictive of long-term disability. Brain imaging results have also been used, yet there are multiple ways of doing brain imaging, at different timepoints in this very dynamic injury. Severity itself is a vague concept. All prediction models based on combining variables that can be assessed during the acute phase have reached only modest predictive values for later outcome. Yet, these early labels of severity often determine how the patient is treated by the healthcare system at large. This opinion paper examines the problems and provides caveats regarding the use of current severity labels and the many practical and scientific issues that arise from doing so. The objective of this paper is to show the causes and consequences of current practice and propose a new approach based on risk classification. A new approach based on multimodal quantifiable data (including imaging and biomarkers) and risk-labels would be of benefit both for the patients and for TBI clinical research and should be a priority for international efforts in the field

Functional Change from Five to Fifteen Years after Traumatic Brain Injury

Few studies have assessed the long-term functional outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in large, well-characterized samples. Using the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems cohort, this study assessed the maintenance of independence between years 5 and 15 post-injury and risk factors for decline. The study sample included 1381 persons with TBI who received inpatient rehabilitation, survived to 15 years post-injury, and were available for data collection at 5 or 10 years and 15 years post-injury. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Disability Rating Scale (DRS) were used to measure functional outcomes. The majority of participants had no changes during the 10-year time frame. For FIM, only 4.4% showed decline in Self-Care, 4.9% declined in Mobility, and 5.9% declined in Cognition. Overall, 10.4% showed decline in one or more FIM subscales. Decline was detected by DRS Level of Function (24% with >1-point change) and Employability (6% with >1-point change). Predictors of decline factors across all measures were age >25 years and, across most measures, having less than or equal to a high school education. Additional predictors of FIM decline included male sex (FIM Mobility and Self-Care) and longer rehabilitation length of stay (FIM Mobility and Cognition). In contrast to studies reporting change in the first 5 years post-TBI inpatient rehabilitation, a majority of those who survive to 15 years do not experience functional decline. Aging and cognitive reserve appear to be more important drivers of loss of function than original severity of the injury. Interventions to identify those at risk for decline may be needed to maintain or enhance functional status as persons age with a TBI

Minimum Competency Recommendations for Programs That Provide Rehabilitation Services for Persons With Disorders of Consciousness: A Position Statement of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems

Persons who have disorders of consciousness (DoC) require care from multidisciplinary teams with specialized training and expertise in management of the complex needs of this clinical population. The recent promulgation of practice guidelines for patients with prolonged DoC by the American Academy of Neurology, American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM), and National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) represents a major advance in the development of care standards in this area of brain injury rehabilitation. Implementation of these practice guidelines requires explication of the minimum competencies of clinical programs providing services to persons who have DoC. The Brain Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group of the ACRM, in collaboration with the Disorders of Consciousness Special Interest Group of the NIDILRR-Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to address this need through the present position statement. Content area-specific workgroups reviewed relevant peer-reviewed literature and drafted recommendations which were then evaluated by the expert panel using a modified Delphi voting process. The process yielded 21 recommendations on the structure and process of essential services required for effective DoC-focused rehabilitation, organized into 4 categories: diagnostic and prognostic assessment (4 recommendations), treatment (11 recommendations), transitioning care/long-term care needs (5 recommendations), and management of ethical issues (1 recommendation). With few exceptions, these recommendations focus on infrastructure requirements and operating procedures for the provision of DoC-focused neurorehabilitation services across subacute and postacute settings

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

Pain in Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Pain and suffering in persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) remain poorly understood, frequently unaddressed or inadequately addressed, and controversial on numerous levels. This narrative literature review will address a number of critical issues germane to pain and suffering in this challenging group of patients, providing an introductory overview of the topic, perspectives on current knowledge regarding pain pathoanatomy and pathophysiology, and a review of common pain generators and factors that can lead to the chronifcation of pain. Caveats on bedside pain assessment challenges, as well as electrophysiologic and neuroimaging findings in these patients, will also be explored. Pain management techniques, including non-pharmacological and pharmacological, will be reviewed. Ethical considerations in the context of pain and suffering in persons with disorders of consciousness will round out the review prior to our concluding comments

Pain in Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Pain and suffering in persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) remain poorly understood, frequently unaddressed or inadequately addressed, and controversial on numerous levels. This narrative literature review will address a number of critical issues germane to pain and suffering in this challenging group of patients, providing an introductory overview of the topic, perspectives on current knowledge regarding pain pathoanatomy and pathophysiology, and a review of common pain generators and factors that can lead to the chronifcation of pain. Caveats on bedside pain assessment challenges, as well as electrophysiologic and neuroimaging findings in these patients, will also be explored. Pain management techniques, including non-pharmacological and pharmacological, will be reviewed. Ethical considerations in the context of pain and suffering in persons with disorders of consciousness will round out the review prior to our concluding comments