Hubbry Logo
Vegetative stateVegetative stateMain
Open search
Vegetative state
Community hub
Vegetative state
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Vegetative state
Vegetative state
Vegetative state
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Vegetative state
SpecialtyNeurology, critical care medicine

A vegetative state (VS) or post-coma unresponsiveness (PCU)[1] is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severe brain damage are in a state of partial arousal rather than true awareness. After four weeks in a vegetative state, the patient is classified as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). This diagnosis is classified as a permanent vegetative state some months (three in the US and six in the UK) after a non-traumatic brain injury or one year after a traumatic injury. The term unresponsive wakefulness syndrome may be used alternatively,[2] as "vegetative state" has some negative connotations among the public.[3] It is occasionally also called Apallic syndrome or Apallisches syndrome, borrowings from German, primarily in European or older sources.[4]

Definition

[edit]

There are several definitions that vary by technical versus layman's usage. There are different legal implications in different countries.

Medical definition

[edit]

Per the definition of the British Royal College of Physicians of London, "a wakeful unconscious state that lasts longer than a few weeks is referred to as a persistent (or 'continuing') vegetative state".[5]

Vegetative state

[edit]

The vegetative state is a chronic or long-term condition. This condition differs from a coma: a coma is a state that lacks both awareness and wakefulness. Patients in a vegetative state may have awoken from a coma, but still have not regained awareness. In the vegetative state patients can open their eyelids occasionally and demonstrate sleep-wake cycles, but completely lack cognitive function. The vegetative state is also called a "coma vigil". The chances of regaining awareness diminish considerably as the time spent in the vegetative state increases.[6]

Persistent vegetative state

[edit]

Persistent vegetative state is the standard usage (except in the UK) for a medical diagnosis, made after numerous neurological and other tests, that due to extensive and irreversible brain damage, a patient is highly unlikely ever to achieve higher functions above a vegetative state. This diagnosis does not mean that a doctor has diagnosed improvement as impossible, but does open the possibility, in the US, for a judicial request to end life support.[7] Informal guidelines hold that this diagnosis can be made after four weeks in a vegetative state. US caselaw has shown that successful petitions for termination have been made after a diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state, although in some cases, such as that of Terri Schiavo, such rulings have generated widespread controversy.

In the UK, the term is discouraged in favor of two more precisely defined terms that have been strongly recommended by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP). These guidelines recommend using a continuous vegetative state for patients in a vegetative state for more than four weeks. A medical determination of a permanent vegetative state can be made if, after exhaustive testing and a customary 12 months of observation,[8] a medical diagnosis is made that it is impossible by any informed medical expectations that the mental condition will ever improve.[9] Hence, a "continuous vegetative state" in the UK may remain the diagnosis in cases that would be called "persistent" in the US or elsewhere.

While the actual testing criteria for a diagnosis of "permanent" in the UK are quite similar to the criteria for a diagnosis of "persistent" in the US, the semantic difference imparts in the UK a legal presumption that is commonly used in court applications for ending life support.[8] The UK diagnosis is generally only made after 12 months of observing a static vegetative state. A diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state in the US usually still requires a petitioner to prove in court that recovery is impossible by informed medical opinion, while in the UK the "permanent" diagnosis already gives the petitioner this presumption and may make the legal process less time-consuming.[7]

In common usage, the "permanent" and "persistent" definitions are sometimes conflated and used interchangeably. However, the acronym "PVS" is intended to define a "persistent vegetative state", without necessarily the connotations of permanence,[citation needed] and is used as such throughout this article. Bryan Jennett, who originally coined the term "persistent vegetative state", has now recommended using the UK division between continuous and permanent in his book The Vegetative State, arguing that "the 'persistent' component of this term ... may seem to suggest irreversibility".[10]

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has suggested "post coma unresponsiveness" as an alternative term for "vegetative state" in general.[11]

[edit]

Unlike brain death, permanent vegetative state (PVS) is recognized by statute law as death in only a very few legal systems. In the US, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.[12] In England, Wales and Scotland, the legal precedent for withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in cases of patients in a PVS was set in 1993 in the case of Tony Bland, who sustained catastrophic anoxic brain injury in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.[5] An application to the Court of Protection is no longer required before nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn or withheld from PVS (or "minimally conscious", MCS) patients.[13]

This legal grey area has led to vocal advocates that those in PVS should be allowed to die. Others are equally determined that, if recovery is at all possible, care should continue. The existence of a small number of diagnosed PVS cases that have eventually resulted in improvement makes defining recovery as "impossible" particularly difficult in a legal sense.[7] This legal and ethical issue raises questions about autonomy, quality of life, appropriate use of resources, the wishes of family members, and professional responsibilities.

Signs and symptoms

[edit]

Most PVS patients are unresponsive to external stimuli and their conditions are associated with different levels of consciousness. Some level of consciousness means a person can still respond, in varying degrees, to stimulation. A person in a coma, however, cannot. In addition, PVS patients often open their eyes in response to feeding, which has to be done by others; they are capable of swallowing, whereas patients in a coma subsist with their eyes closed.[14]

Cerebral cortical function (e.g. communication, thinking, purposeful movement, etc.) is lost while brainstem functions (e.g. breathing, maintaining circulation and hemodynamic stability, etc.) are preserved. Non-cognitive upper brainstem functions such as eye-opening, occasional vocalizations (e.g. crying, laughing), maintaining normal sleep patterns, and spontaneous non-purposeful movements often remain intact.

PVS patients' eyes might be in a relatively fixed position, or track moving objects, or move in a disconjugate (i.e., completely unsynchronized) manner. They may experience sleep-wake cycles, or be in a state of chronic wakefulness. They may exhibit some behaviors that can be construed as arising from partial consciousness, such as grinding their teeth, swallowing, smiling, shedding tears, grunting, moaning, or screaming without any apparent external stimulus.

Individuals in PVS are seldom on any life-sustaining equipment other than a feeding tube because the brainstem, the center of vegetative functions (such as heart rate and rhythm, respiration, and gastrointestinal activity) is relatively intact.[14]

Recovery

[edit]

Many people emerge spontaneously from a vegetative state within a few weeks.[10] The chances of recovery depend on the extent of injury to the brain and the patient's age – younger patients having a better chance of recovery than older patients. A 1994 report found that of those who were in a vegetative state a month after a trauma, 54% had regained consciousness by a year after the trauma, whereas 28% had died and 18% were still in the vegetative state. For non-traumatic injuries such as strokes, only 14% had recovered consciousness at one year, 47% had died, and 39% were still vegetative. Patients who were vegetative six months after the initial event were much less likely to have recovered consciousness a year after the event than in the case of those who were simply reported vegetative at one month.[15] A New Scientist article from 2000 gives a pair of graphs[16] showing changes of patient status during the first 12 months after head injury and after incidents depriving the brain of oxygen.[17] After a year, the chances that a PVS patient will regain consciousness are very low[18] and most patients who do recover consciousness experience significant disability. The longer a patient is in a PVS, the more severe the resulting disabilities are likely to be. Rehabilitation can contribute to recovery, but many patients never progress to the point of being able to take care of themselves.

The medical literature also includes case reports of the recovery of a small number of patients following the removal of assisted respiration with cold oxygen.[19] The researchers found that in many nursing homes and hospitals unheated oxygen is given to non-responsive patients via tracheal intubation. This bypasses the warming of the upper respiratory tract and causes a chilling of aortic blood and chilling of the brain which the authors believe may contribute to the person's nonresponsive state. The researchers describe a small number of cases in which removal of the chilled oxygen was followed by recovery from the PVS and recommend either warming of oxygen with a heated nebulizer or removal of the assisted oxygen if it is no longer needed.[19] The authors further recommend additional research to determine if this chilling effect may either delay recovery or even may contribute to brain damage.

There are two dimensions of recovery from a persistent vegetative state: recovery of consciousness and recovery of function. Recovery of consciousness can be verified by reliable evidence of awareness of self and the environment, consistent voluntary behavioral responses to visual and auditory stimuli, and interaction with others. Recovery of function is characterized by communication, the ability to learn and to perform adaptive tasks, mobility, self-care, and participation in recreational or vocational activities. Recovery of consciousness may occur without functional recovery, but functional recovery cannot occur without recovery of consciousness.[20]

Causes

[edit]

There are three main causes of PVS (persistent vegetative state):

Potential causes of PVS are:[21]

In addition, these authors claim that doctors sometimes use the mnemonic device AEIOU-TIPS to recall portions of the differential diagnosis: Alcohol ingestion and acidosis, epilepsy and encephalopathy, infection, opiates, uremia, trauma, insulin overdose or inflammatory disorders, poisoning and psychogenic causes, and shock.

Diagnosis

[edit]

Despite converging agreement about the definition of persistent vegetative state, recent reports have raised concerns about the accuracy of diagnosis in some patients, and the extent to which, in a selection of cases, residual cognitive functions may remain undetected and patients are diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Objective assessment of residual cognitive function can be extremely difficult as motor responses may be minimal, inconsistent, and difficult to document in many patients, or may be undetectable in others because no cognitive output is possible.[23] In recent years, a number of studies have demonstrated an important role for functional neuroimaging in the identification of residual cognitive function in persistent vegetative state; this technology is providing new insights into cerebral activity in patients with severe brain damage. Such studies, when successful, may be particularly useful where there is concern about the accuracy of the diagnosis and the possibility that residual cognitive function has remained undetected.

Diagnostic experiments

[edit]

Researchers have begun to use functional neuroimaging studies to study implicit cognitive processing in patients with a clinical diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Activations in response to sensory stimuli with positron emission tomography (PET), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and electrophysiological methods can provide information on the presence, degree, and location of any residual brain function. However, use of these techniques in people with severe brain damage is methodologically, clinically, and theoretically complex and needs careful quantitative analysis and interpretation.

For example, PET studies have shown the identification of residual cognitive function in persistent vegetative state. That is, an external stimulation, such as a painful stimulus, still activates "primary" sensory cortices in these patients but these areas are functionally disconnected from "higher order" associative areas needed for awareness. These results show that parts of the cortex are indeed still functioning in "vegetative" patients.[24]

In addition, other PET studies have revealed preserved and consistent responses in predicted regions of auditory cortex in response to intelligible speech stimuli. Moreover, a preliminary fMRI examination revealed partially intact responses to semantically ambiguous stimuli, which are known to tap higher aspects of speech comprehension.[25]

Furthermore, several studies have used PET to assess the central processing of noxious somatosensory stimuli in patients in PVS. Noxious somatosensory stimulation activated midbrain, contralateral thalamus, and primary somatosensory cortex in each and every PVS patient, even in the absence of detectable cortical evoked potentials. Somatosensory stimulation of PVS patients, at intensities that elicited pain in controls, resulted in increased neuronal activity in primary somatosensory cortex, even if resting brain metabolism was severely impaired. However, this activation of primary cortex seems to be isolated and dissociated from higher-order associative cortices.[26]

Also, there is evidence of partially functional cerebral regions in catastrophically injured brains. To study five patients in PVS with different behavioral features, researchers employed PET, MRI and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) responses to sensory stimulation. In three of the five patients, co-registered PET/MRI correlate areas of relatively preserved brain metabolism with isolated fragments of behavior. Two patients had had anoxic injuries and demonstrated marked decreases in overall cerebral metabolism to 30–40% of normal. Two other patients with non-anoxic, multifocal brain injuries demonstrated several isolated brain regions with higher metabolic rates, that ranged up to 50–80% of normal. Nevertheless, their global metabolic rates remained <50% of normal. MEG recordings from three PVS patients provide clear evidence for the absence, abnormality or reduction of evoked responses. Despite major abnormalities, however, these data also provide evidence for localized residual activity at the cortical level. Each patient partially preserved restricted sensory representations, as evidenced by slow evoked magnetic fields and gamma band activity. In two patients, these activations correlate with isolated behavioral patterns and metabolic activity. Remaining active regions identified in the three PVS patients with behavioral fragments appear to consist of segregated corticothalamic networks that retain connectivity and partial functional integrity. A single patient who sustained severe injury to the tegmental mesencephalon and paramedian thalamus showed widely preserved cortical metabolism, and a global average metabolic rate of 65% of normal. The relatively high preservation of cortical metabolism in this patient defines the first functional correlate of clinical–pathological reports associating permanent unconsciousness with structural damage to these regions. The specific patterns of preserved metabolic activity identified in these patients reflect novel evidence of the modular nature of individual functional networks that underlie conscious brain function. The variations in cerebral metabolism in chronic PVS patients indicate that some cerebral regions can retain partial function in catastrophically injured brains.[27]

Misdiagnoses

[edit]

Statistical PVS misdiagnosis is common. An example study with 40 patients in the United Kingdom diagnosed with PVS reported 43% of the patients were considered to have been misdiagnosed, and another 33% had recovered whilst the study was underway.[28] Some PVS cases may actually be a misdiagnosis of patients being in an undiagnosed minimally conscious state.[29] Since the exact diagnostic criteria of the minimally conscious state were only formulated in 2002, there may be chronic patients diagnosed as PVS before the secondary notion of the minimally conscious state became known.

Whether or not there is any conscious awareness with a patient's vegetative state is a prominent issue. Three completely different aspects of this should be distinguished. First, some patients can be conscious simply because they are misdiagnosed (see above). In fact, they are not in vegetative states. Second, sometimes a patient was correctly diagnosed but is then examined during the early stages of recovery. Third, perhaps some day the notion itself of vegetative states will change so to include elements of conscious awareness. Inability to disentangle these three example cases causes confusion. An example of such confusion is the response to an experiment using functional magnetic resonance imaging which revealed that a woman diagnosed with PVS was able to activate predictable portions of her brain in response to the tester's requests that she imagine herself playing tennis or moving from room to room in her house. The brain activity in response to these instructions was indistinguishable from those of healthy patients.[30][31][32]

In 2010, Martin Monti and fellow researchers, working at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at the University of Cambridge, reported in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine[33] that some patients in persistent vegetative states responded to verbal instructions by displaying different patterns of brain activity on fMRI scans. Five out of a total of 54 diagnosed patients were apparently able to respond when instructed to think about one of two different physical activities. One of these five was also able to "answer" yes or no questions, again by imagining one of these two activities.[34] It is unclear, however, whether the fact that portions of the patients' brains light up on fMRI could help these patients assume their own medical decision making.[34]

In November 2011, a publication in The Lancet presented bedside EEG apparatus and indicated that its signal could be used to detect awareness in three of 16 patients diagnosed in the vegetative state.[35]

Treatment

[edit]

Currently no treatment for vegetative state exists that would satisfy the efficacy criteria of evidence-based medicine. Several methods have been proposed which can roughly be subdivided into four categories: pharmacological methods, surgery, physical therapy, and various stimulation techniques. Pharmacological therapy mainly uses activating substances such as tricyclic antidepressants or methylphenidate. Mixed results have been reported using dopaminergic drugs such as amantadine and bromocriptine and stimulants such as dextroamphetamine.[36] Surgical methods such as deep brain stimulation are used less frequently due to the invasiveness of the procedures. Stimulation techniques include sensory stimulation, sensory regulation, music and musicokinetic therapy, social-tactile interaction, and cortical stimulation.[37]

Zolpidem

[edit]

There is limited evidence that the hypnotic drug zolpidem has an effect.[37] The results of the few scientific studies that have been published so far on the effectiveness of zolpidem have been contradictory.[38][39]

Epidemiology

[edit]

In the United States, it is estimated that there may be between 15,000 and 40,000 patients who are in a persistent vegetative state, but due to poor nursing home records exact figures are hard to determine.[40]

History

[edit]

The syndrome was first described in 1940 by Ernst Kretschmer who called it apallic syndrome.[41] However the term vegetative had been attested to in the OED since 1764, then described as an organic body capable of growth and development but devoid of sensation and thought.[10] Thus the related term persistent vegetative state was coined in 1972 by Scottish spinal surgeon Bryan Jennett and American neurologist Fred Plum to describe a syndrome that seemed to have been made possible by medicine's increased capacities to keep patients' bodies alive.[10][42]

Society and culture

[edit]

Ethics and policy

[edit]

An ongoing debate exists as to how much care, if any, patients in a persistent vegetative state should receive in health systems plagued by limited resources. In a case before the New Jersey Superior Court, Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital, a community hospital sought a ruling that dialysis and CPR for such a patient constitutes futile care. An American bioethicist, Jacob M. Appel, argued that any money spent treating PVS patients would be better spent on other patients with a higher likelihood of recovery.[43] The patient died naturally prior to a decision in the case, resulting in the court finding the issue moot.

In 2010, British and Belgian researchers reported in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that some patients in persistent vegetative states actually had enough consciousness to "answer" yes or no questions on fMRI scans.[34] However, it is unclear whether the fact that portions of the patients' brains light up on fMRI will help these patient assume their own medical decision making.[34] Professor Geraint Rees, Director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, responded to the study by observing that, "As a clinician, it would be important to satisfy oneself that the individual that you are communicating with is competent to make those decisions. At the moment it is premature to conclude that the individual able to answer 5 out of 6 yes/no questions is fully conscious like you or I."[34] In contrast, Jacob M. Appel of the Mount Sinai Hospital told the Telegraph that this development could be a welcome step toward clarifying the wishes of such patients. Appel stated: "I see no reason why, if we are truly convinced such patients are communicating, society should not honour their wishes. In fact, as a physician, I think a compelling case can be made that doctors have an ethical obligation to assist such patients by removing treatment. I suspect that, if such individuals are indeed trapped in their bodies, they may be living in great torment and will request to have their care terminated or even active euthanasia."[34]

Notable cases

[edit]
See also: List of people who awoke from a coma
  • Tony Bland – first patient in English legal history to be allowed to die
  • Paul Brophy – first American to die after court authorization
  • Sunny von Bülow – American heiress, socalite, and philanthropist. She lived almost 28 years in a persistent vegetative state until her death.
  • Gustavo Cerati – Argentine singer-songwriter, composer, and producer who died after four years in a chronic disorder of consciousness state.
  • Prichard Colón – Puerto Rican former professional boxer and gold medal winner who spent years in a vegetative state after a bout.
  • Nancy Cruzan – American woman involved in a landmark United States Supreme Court case.
  • Gary Dockery – American police officer who entered, emerged, and later reentered a persistent vegetative state.
  • Eluana Englaro – Italian woman from Lecco who spent 17 years in a vegetative state until her death when a legal ruling authorized the removal of her feeding tube.
  • Elaine Esposito – American woman who was a previous record holder for having spent 37 years in a chronic disorder of consciousness state.
  • Lia Lee – Hmong girl who spent 26 years in a vegetative state after a seizure, and was the subject of a 1997 book by Anne Fadiman.
  • Martin Pistorius – South African man whose vegetative state progressed to minimally conscious after 3 years, locked-in syndrome after another 4 years, and fully came out of a coma after another 5 years. He is now a web designer, developer, and author. In 2011, he wrote a book called Ghost Boy, in which he describes his many years of being in a state of chronic disorder of consciousness.
  • Annie Shapiro – Canadian woman and survivor of a vegatative state after 29 total years of being comatose. In 1992, she awakened fully recovered and lived her last 10 years peacefully. Her case is the longest a person has been in a coma and recovered.
  • Haleigh Poutre – American women at the center of a legal controversy regarding removal of life support.
  • Karen Ann Quinlan – American women at center of right to die lawsuit.
  • Terri Schiavo – American women at the center of a seven year legal battle between her husband and parents over whether to stop life sustaining measures.
  • Aruna Shanbaug – Indian woman in persistent vegetative state for 42 years until her death. Owing to her case, the Supreme Court of India allowed passive euthanasia in the country.
  • Ariel Sharon – Prime Minister of Israel (2001–2006). Was in a vegetative state after a stroke for 8 years until his death in 2014.[44]
  • Chayito Valdez – Mexican singer and actress.
  • Vice Vukov – Croatian singer and politician.
  • Helga Wanglie – American women at center of legal battle between doctors and her family regarding life sustaining measures.
  • Otto Warmbier - American college student whose parents requested his life support to be removed after being evacuated from the Pyongyang Friendship Hospital to Cincinnati in a vegetative state following an arrest during a tourist trip.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Vegetative state

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A vegetative state, also termed unresponsive , is a clinical disorder of consciousness in which a demonstrates preserved , including spontaneous eye opening and sleep-wake cycles, but lacks any behavioral evidence of of or environment, such as purposeful responses to stimuli or volitional . This condition arises primarily from severe acquired brain injuries, either traumatic (e.g., from head trauma) or nontraumatic (e.g., hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy following ), leading to widespread bilateral cortical and subcortical damage that disrupts neural networks essential for while sparing brainstem-mediated autonomic functions like and circulation. Diagnosis relies on standardized behavioral assessments, such as the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, which confirm the absence of reproducible, contingent responses over multiple evaluations, distinguishing it from (lacking ) and the (featuring inconsistent but discernible ). Key diagnostic challenges include high rates of misdiagnosis, estimated at 30-40%, often due to failure to detect subtle signs of covert revealed by advanced like functional MRI, which has identified task-related in some patients presumed vegetative. varies by and duration: traumatic cases show higher recovery potential, with about 50% emerging within the first year, whereas nontraumatic persistent vegetative states beyond 12 months are deemed permanent with minimal improvement odds, though long-term survival can extend years with supportive care. Prevalence remains imprecise but low, affecting thousands annually following severe injury, underscoring the need for rigorous, multimodal evaluation to avoid conflating true unawareness with undetected minimal . The term "vegetative" has drawn criticism for its dehumanizing connotations, prompting the proposed shift to "unresponsive wakefulness syndrome" in peer-reviewed literature to emphasize empirical behavioral criteria over imagery.

Definition and Terminology

Core Medical Definition

A vegetative state is a disorder of consciousness in which patients exhibit , evidenced by preserved sleep-wake cycles and eye-opening, but demonstrate no behavioral signs of of themselves or their environment, nor any purposeful or voluntary interaction with external stimuli. This condition arises from severe brain injury disrupting higher cortical functions while sparing subcortical systems, such as those in the and , allowing reflexive autonomic and motor responses but precluding integrated or volition. The term "persistent vegetative state" applies when the condition endures beyond one month, though varies by , with traumatic causes showing potential for recovery up to 12 months post-injury and non-traumatic up to three months. Core diagnostic criteria, per the 1994 Multi-Society Task Force consensus, require: (1) no of self or environment and inability to interact with others; (2) no sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; (3) no language comprehension or expression; (4) intermittent with sleep-wake cycles; (5) preserved hypothalamic and autonomic functions sufficient for survival with supportive care; (6) bowel and continence; and (7) variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. These criteria emphasize behavioral observation over alone, as arousal without responsiveness distinguishes the state from (lacking ) and minimally conscious states (showing inconsistent but discernible ). Misdiagnosis risks exist due to subtle fluctuations or effects, necessitating repeated assessments by trained examiners. In 2010, the term "unresponsive wakefulness syndrome" was proposed to replace "vegetative state" for its less connotations while retaining the clinical essence of dissociated and unawareness, reflecting evolving ethical considerations in without altering diagnostic thresholds. Empirical validation of these definitions relies on standardized scales like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, which operationalize criteria through structured testing of auditory, visual, motor, oromotor, communication, and domains, confirming absence of command-following, localization, or object manipulation indicative of . This framework prioritizes observable, reproducible behaviors as proxies for underlying neural integrity, grounded in the causal disconnection between preserved reticular activating system function and impaired thalamocortical connectivity.

Evolution of Terms and Classifications

The term "persistent vegetative state" was introduced in 1972 by Scottish neurosurgeon Bryan Jennett and American Fred Plum to describe patients who had emerged from but exhibited no behavioral evidence of awareness, while retaining sleep-wake cycles and reflexive motor functions. This nomenclature emphasized the preservation of "vegetative" autonomic processes, such as breathing and digestion, akin to brainstem-mediated functions, distinguishing the condition from (total unarousability) or . The phrase drew from earlier, sporadic uses of "vegetative" in to denote mindless vitality, but Jennett and Plum formalized it as a of wakeful unresponsiveness following severe . In 1994, the Multi-Society Task Force on the Persistent Vegetative State refined classifications, defining "persistent" as lasting at least one month post-coma and introducing "permanent" for cases deemed irreversible—typically after 12 months for nontraumatic etiologies or for traumatic ones, based on recovery data showing negligible improvement beyond those thresholds. This temporal distinction aimed to guide and ethical decisions, supported by longitudinal studies indicating that 50-70% of patients in PVS due to trauma might partially recover within the first year, versus far lower rates thereafter. However, the adjective "persistent" was later dropped in favor of simply "vegetative state" (VS) for durations exceeding four weeks, reflecting a shift toward behavioral criteria over strict timelines in bodies like the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Criticism of "vegetative state" mounted due to its implications, evoking dehumanizing of plant-like existence and potentially biasing public and clinical perceptions toward futility, despite evidence from suggesting covert in some cases. In 2010, the European Task Force on Disorders of Consciousness proposed replacing it with "unresponsive wakefulness syndrome" (UWS) to focus on observable lack of responsiveness amid preserved , avoiding emotive while maintaining diagnostic fidelity. UWS and VS are now often used interchangeably in peer-reviewed , with UWS gaining traction in European guidelines for its neutrality, though VS persists in American standards; both require exclusion of via standardized scales like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised. This terminological evolution reflects ongoing tensions between precise neurobehavioral description and ethical avoidance of stigma, informed by advances in functional MRI revealing potential misdiagnosis rates of up to 40% under behavioral assessment alone. The vegetative state, also termed unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, is distinguished from by the presence of without behavioral evidence of . In , both and are absent, with patients exhibiting no spontaneous eye opening, sleep-wake cycles, or response to stimuli beyond basic reflexes; this state typically lasts days to weeks following severe brain injury. In contrast, vegetative state patients demonstrate preserved brainstem-mediated , including intermittent eye opening and diurnal sleep-wake patterns, but display only reflexive or spontaneous behaviors uncorrelated with the environment, such as grimacing or limb withdrawal to , without purposeful interaction.
ConditionArousal (e.g., Eye Opening, Sleep-Wake Cycles)Awareness (Behavioral Evidence)Distinguishing Clinical Features
ComaAbsentAbsentUnarousable; no brainstem reflexes in prolonged cases; often evolves to vegetative state if recovery occurs.
Vegetative StatePresentAbsentReflexive movements only; no contingent responses to commands or environment.
Minimally Conscious StatePresentFluctuating, minimalPurposeful behaviors like following simple commands or visual pursuit, inconsistent but reproducible.
Locked-in SyndromePresentIntactPreserved cognition and volition; vertical eye movements or blinking for communication; motor pathways disrupted (e.g., ventral brainstem lesion).
Brain DeathAbsentAbsent (irreversible)No brainstem function; apnea, absent pupillary/corneal reflexes; legally equivalent to death.
The represents a transitional disorder with subtle evidence of awareness, setting it apart from vegetative state through contingent, albeit inconsistent, behaviors such as following a mirror visually or producing intelligible sounds in response to questions. These signs indicate partial preservation of thalamocortical networks for and , unlike the diffuse cortical disconnection in vegetative state. Misdiagnosis between the two is common, with behavioral assessments alone yielding error rates up to 40% due to fluctuating and subtle cues; advanced tools like fMRI reveal preserved language networks in absent in vegetative state. Locked-in syndrome, resulting from lesions like pontine infarction, preserves full consciousness and cognition but impairs voluntary motor output except for ocular signals, distinguishing it from vegetative state where awareness itself is absent rather than merely unexpressible. Functional connectivity analyses show intact default mode networks in locked-in syndrome, mirroring healthy states, versus disrupted ones in vegetative state. Brain death, by contrast, involves complete and irreversible cessation of all brain functions, including those sustaining arousal in vegetative state, with no potential for recovery; vegetative state patients retain autonomic stability and may persist indefinitely with support. These distinctions rely on multimodal evaluation to avoid conflation, as initial post-coma assessments can overlap.

Pathophysiology and Causes

Neural Mechanisms of Consciousness Loss

In the vegetative state, also termed unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, consciousness loss arises from a dissociation between preserved mechanisms and disrupted higher-order cortical integration required for awareness. , enabling sleep-wake cycles and eye opening, is maintained by the intact ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) in the , which projects diffusely to the and cortex to sustain vigilance without necessitating cognitive content. Damage to this system typically precludes the vegetative state, as seen in deeper comas or . Awareness, conversely, depends on thalamocortical loops that integrate sensory, attentional, and across distributed networks. In vegetative states, severe bilateral lesions or —often from trauma, anoxia, or vascular events—severely impair these loops, leading to functional disconnection between thalamic relays and cortical association areas such as the prefrontal, premotor, and parietotemporal regions. (PET) studies reveal hypometabolism in these zones, with particularly reduced regional cerebral metabolic rates for glucose (rCMRGlu) in the (PCC) and , hubs of the (DMN) implicated in self-referential processing and internal mentation. This disconnection manifests as bistable cortical dynamics akin to sleep-like OFF-periods during , where neuronal ensembles fail to sustain causal interactions and , as evidenced by transcranial magnetic stimulation-electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) perturbations showing diminished and reduced perturbational index values compared to healthy or minimally conscious states. Functional MRI (fMRI) corroborates this with global reductions in between-network connectivity, particularly in thalamocortical and frontoparietal pathways, yielding loosely structured graphs that preclude the integrated theorized necessary for phenomenal . Recovery trajectories often correlate with reconnection of these pathways, as ARAS-cortical tract integrity improves in patients emerging to minimally conscious states. Empirical models emphasize that consciousness loss is not merely quantitative (e.g., metabolic suppression) but qualitative, involving breakdown in recurrent processing and feedback loops that enable content-specific representation. For instance, while reflexive brainstem-mediated responses persist, the absence of PCC self-inhibition and oscillatory disruptions prevent the global ignition of conscious percepts. These mechanisms underscore why vegetative states resist simple arousal enhancement; interventions like targeting thalamic nuclei aim to restore loop integrity but yield variable outcomes due to underlying structural heterogeneity.

Primary Etiologies and Risk Factors

The vegetative state most commonly arises from severe injuries that disrupt higher cortical functions while sparing brainstem arousal mechanisms. Primary etiologies are broadly classified as traumatic or nontraumatic, with traumatic causes accounting for approximately 30-50% of cases in adults, often linked to and secondary hemorrhages from high-impact events such as collisions or falls. Nontraumatic etiologies predominate in older populations and include hypoxic-ischemic insults from or near-drowning, which lead to widespread neuronal death due to oxygen deprivation lasting beyond 5-10 minutes. Vascular events, such as ischemic strokes or intracerebral hemorrhages affecting the and cortex, represent another key nontraumatic pathway, particularly in individuals over 60 years with or . Infectious processes like or bacterial can precipitate the state through and , while metabolic derangements—such as profound or hyperammonemia in —disrupt neuronal selectively in vulnerable regions. Less frequently, primary tumors or degenerative conditions like end-stage contribute, though these rarely isolate from without confounding comorbidities. Risk factors amplify susceptibility across etiologies. For traumatic origins, male sex, age under 40, and behaviors involving or high-speed activities elevate incidence, as evidenced by epidemiological data showing crashes as the leading precipitant in younger cohorts. Nontraumatic risks include predisposing to anoxic events, with and disorders increasing coma vulnerability through glycemic instability or respiratory depression. Advanced age correlates with poorer tissue resilience to insults, while premorbid conditions like heighten seizure-related hypoxic risks. Overall, the severity and duration of the initial brain insult—measured by scores below 8—serve as the strongest predictors of progression to persistent vegetative state.

Clinical Presentation

Observable Signs and Behavioral Patterns

Patients in a vegetative state, also termed unresponsive syndrome, exhibit preserved mechanisms manifesting as spontaneous eye opening and sleep-wake cycles, yet demonstrate no behavioral evidence of of self or environment. Eye opening occurs periodically without relation to external stimuli or internal volition, often accompanied by roving eye movements characterized by slow, constant velocity trajectories lacking saccadic jerks, fixation, or pursuit of objects. These cycles reflect brainstem integrity but do not correlate with environmental cues or circadian entrainment. Behavioral is restricted to reflexive and spontaneous actions without purposeful intent or in response to commands. Common patterns include primitive limb movements, such as grasping upon direct contact, and brainstem-mediated reflexes like yawning, chewing, swallowing, or guttural vocalizations. Responses to noxious stimuli typically elicit stereotyped motor patterns, including decorticate or decerebrate posturing, without localization, withdrawal, or avoidance behaviors indicative of comprehension. Startle reflexes may occur to intense auditory or visual inputs, such as loud noises or bright lights, but these are inconsistent and non-adaptive. Absence of key awareness markers defines the pattern: no sustained visual tracking, no oriented head turns toward stimuli, and no command-following, such as finger or limb movement on verbal request. Occasional quasi-voluntary appearances, like transient smiling or frowning, arise from reflexive arcs rather than emotional processing. These signs collectively distinguish vegetative state from , where reproducible, contingent behaviors emerge.

Indicators of Potential Awareness

Subtle behavioral fluctuations in patients classified as vegetative state (also termed unresponsive syndrome) may signal potential awareness, though these often fail to meet standardized diagnostic thresholds for due to inconsistency or subtlety. Examples include sporadic visual fixation or pursuit of objects, localization toward auditory or noxious stimuli, resistance to passive eye opening, and variations in spontaneous blink rates exceeding reflexive norms. In a cohort of severe brain injury patients transitioning from unresponsive , visual fixation emerged as the predominant initial sign (observed in 57% of cases), followed by localization to noxious stimulation (27%), typically as isolated indicators rather than clusters. Such responses, when reproducible under controlled conditions, challenge pure vegetative diagnoses but require repeated validation to distinguish from reflexive or activity. Neuroimaging modalities provide stronger empirical indicators of covert , detecting volitional brain activity absent in overt behavior. Functional MRI (fMRI) paradigms elicit command-following by instructing patients to imagine specific actions, such as playing (activating premotor and parietal regions) or navigating spatial environments (engaging hippocampal and parahippocampal areas), yielding activation patterns akin to those in healthy controls. A landmark 2006 study identified this capacity in a 23-year-old in vegetative state for five months post-trauma, with reproducible responses across sessions. Subsequent research estimates covert in 10-20% of behaviorally unresponsive patients, with multi-task fMRI paradigms (e.g., semantic processing or mental arithmetic) enhancing sensitivity beyond single tasks. Electroencephalography (EEG) offers a portable alternative for bedside detection, capturing event-related potentials or changes indicative of intentional processing. In a 2011 of 16 vegetative patients, EEG tasks (e.g., imagining hand movements) revealed command-following in three (19%), with signals matching instructed conditions and distinguishing from artifacts.61224-5/fulltext) High-density EEG further corroborates this, identifying covert responses in up to 15% of cases unresponsive to behavioral scales like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised. Combining EEG with fMRI across modalities raises detection rates, as discrepant results in single tests may reflect task-specific impairments rather than absent . These findings underscore neural dissociation between behavioral output and internal , though false positives from residual automation remain a methodological concern addressed via statistical thresholding and replication.

Diagnosis

Standard Behavioral Assessments

The Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) serves as the primary standardized tool for behavioral assessment in diagnosing vegetative state, evaluating auditory, visual, motor, oromotor/feeding, communication, and functions through hierarchical scoring of responses to sensory stimuli and commands. Scores below specific thresholds, such as total CRS-R ≤2 on and no higher than reflexive responses on other subscales, indicate vegetative state by confirming preserved without evidence of or purposeful . Developed in 2004 and validated for reliability in trained hands, the CRS-R requires 30-60 minutes per administration and repeated testing over multiple sessions to account for fluctuating and inconsistent responses. Key subscales include auditory (e.g., response to spoken commands or sounds, scored from no response to accurate localization) and motor (e.g., progression from no movement to functional object use), where vegetative state is characterized by absence of command-following or contingent behaviors. Visual subscale tests fixation or tracking, and oromotor assesses oral reflexes without volitional ; low scores across these domains support vegetative diagnosis when combined with clinical history of severe brain injury. The scale's exceeds 0.90 when standardized protocols are followed, outperforming unstructured clinical observation in detecting subtle signs that might indicate instead. Other assessments, such as the Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Treatment (SMART), supplement CRS-R by focusing on multimodal sensory responses but lack the same breadth for . Routine behavioral exams emphasize excluding confounds like or , with assessments conducted during optimal periods; failure to demonstrate reproducible, non-reflexive behaviors—such as oriented eye movements or gesture replication—reinforces vegetative state classification. These tools prioritize empirical observation of causal links between stimuli and outputs, avoiding overinterpretation of ambiguous reflexes as .

Advanced Neuroimaging and Functional Tests

Advanced neuroimaging and functional tests address limitations of behavioral assessments, which can miss covert awareness in up to 40% of cases diagnosed as vegetative state (VS) or unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS). These techniques probe neural activation, metabolism, and connectivity to differentiate VS/UWS from minimally conscious state (MCS) and detect hidden command-following or sensory processing. Functional MRI (fMRI) paradigms, such as mental imagery tasks requiring patients to alternately imagine playing tennis or navigating a familiar route, have revealed volitional brain activity in non-communicative individuals, indicating preserved consciousness despite absent behavioral signs. A 2006 study by Owen et al. first demonstrated this in a 23-year-old woman in apparent VS post-trauma, with activation in supplementary motor and parahippocampal regions matching healthy controls. Positron emission tomography (PET), particularly with [18F]FDG, assesses cerebral glucose metabolism to identify preserved thalamocortical networks, which are disrupted in VS/UWS but relatively intact in MCS. A 2024 of 18 studies found FDG-PET sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 94% for distinguishing MCS from VS/UWS, outperforming structural MRI. In prognostic contexts, higher metabolic rates in prefrontal and regions correlate with recovery potential, as seen in longitudinal data from cohorts. (EEG) provides a portable alternative, measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) like or P300 to auditory stimuli, which signal implicit . Recent analyses of EEG and dynamic patterns differentiate VS/UWS from MCS with accuracies up to 85% in small cohorts, leveraging on resting-state data. Despite these advances, implementation challenges persist: fMRI requires stable patients and specialized centers, with reproducibility varying across studies due to heterogeneous etiologies (e.g., anoxic vs. traumatic). Only 5-20% of behaviorally diagnosed VS/UWS patients show detectable fMRI responses, underscoring that negative findings do not rule out consciousness. PET's radiation exposure limits serial use, while EEG's sensitivity to artifacts demands expertise. Multimodal integration—combining fMRI, PET, and EEG—enhances diagnostic precision, as evidenced by a 2024 clinical protocol achieving 90% agreement with behavioral revisions in 50 patients. These tests inform ethical decisions on life support but remain adjunctive, not replacing Coma Recovery Scale-Revised as the gold standard. Ongoing trials emphasize standardization to mitigate false positives from confounds like residual muscle activity.

Misdiagnosis Prevalence and Consequences

Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state (VS), now termed unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS), primarily involves classifying patients with minimal conscious state (MCS) or emerging MCS as UWS due to reliance on behavioral observation alone, which fails to detect inconsistent or subtle signs of awareness. A analysis of 40 patients referred for presumed VS in a rehabilitation unit found that 43% (17 patients) were misdiagnosed, with purposeful responses to stimuli evident upon systematic re-evaluation, including following simple commands and localization of pain. Similar rates have been reported in subsequent studies, with informal bedside assessments yielding misdiagnosis errors up to 40%, often because examiners overlook fluctuating arousal or non-reflexive behaviors. A 2020 multicenter study of prolonged disorders of consciousness confirmed a 35.3% misdiagnosis rate when comparing initial clinical consensus to repeated standardized behavioral scales like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). These errors persist despite diagnostic guidelines, as single or infrequent assessments by non-specialists contribute to false negatives for , with rates of undetected MCS in presumed UWS patients ranging from 37% to 43% across multiple cohorts evaluated with validated tools. Factors exacerbating prevalence include assessor inexperience, lack of standardized protocols, and assumption of reflex-only activity in patients with preserved wakefulness cycles but no overt responsiveness. Recent data indicate that even in specialized settings, up to 41% of UWS cases may harbor undetected conscious processing when advanced behavioral testing is applied repeatedly. Consequences of misdiagnosis are profound, often leading to where potentially recoverable patients are denied targeted rehabilitation, which has shown efficacy in promoting functional gains for MCS individuals. Unlike true UWS, where long-term recovery is rare, misdiagnosed MCS patients demonstrate in over one-third of cases beyond one year post-coma, including transitions to higher levels and reduced dependency. Premature withdrawal of life-sustaining measures, informed by erroneous UWS labels, risks hastening death in patients capable of or , as evidenced by cases where re-diagnosis revealed command-following abilities post-initial assessment. Such errors also strain , potentially overriding family advocacy for continued care and contributing to legal disputes over accuracy, while underutilizing resources like sensory programs that could mitigate secondary complications such as contractures or infections in responsive patients. Overall, these diagnostic pitfalls underscore the need for multimodal confirmation to avoid irreversible harms from conflating reflexive with absent .

Prognosis and Outcomes

Prognostic Indicators and Trajectories

Prognostic outcomes in , also termed unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, are influenced primarily by etiology, with associated with substantially higher rates of compared to non-traumatic causes such as anoxic or hypoxic-ischemic . In adults with TBI-induced VS, approximately 52% regain within one year, whereas only 15% do so following non-traumatic etiologies. Younger age further improves across etiologies, with patients under 40 years exhibiting higher recovery probabilities than older individuals. Duration of VS serves as a critical temporal indicator, with recovery likelihood diminishing markedly over time; for TBI, consciousness recovery rates are 78% by 12 months but rare beyond that threshold, while non-traumatic VS shows 17% recovery by six months and only 7.5% by 24 months. The American Academy of Neurology defines permanent VS as persisting beyond 12 months post-TBI or three months post-non-traumatic injury in adults, reflecting near-absent further improvement. Clinical assessments, such as the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R), provide behavioral indicators; higher motor scores (e.g., withdrawal to pain) correlate with favorable outcomes, while cognitive-motor dissociation—detectable via command-following on despite absent behavioral responses—predicts functional recovery with an odds ratio of 4.6 at one year. Advanced neurophysiological tests enhance prognostic accuracy beyond behavioral evaluation alone. (EEG) reactivity, including task-based paradigms, yields 65-83% sensitivity and 79-86% specificity for predicting emergence, outperforming resting-state measures in some models. Functional MRI (fMRI) task-based activation shows 79% sensitivity and 84% specificity, with hybrid models combining EEG and fMRI achieving up to 87% sensitivity and 89% specificity. These modalities identify preserved thalamocortical connectivity, a marker of recovery potential absent in profound VS cases.
EtiologyConsciousness Recovery at 1 Year (Adults)Good Functional Recovery at 1 Year (Adults)
Traumatic (TBI)52%7%
Non-Traumatic (e.g., Anoxic)15%<1%
Trajectories typically involve persistence in VS, transition to (MCS), or death, with TBI cases showing more variable paths including late recoveries up to years post-injury, though overall emergence in prolonged disorders of consciousness plateaus below 50% beyond initial months. In non-traumatic VS, trajectories are more uniformly poor, with brain atrophy accelerating irreversible damage; survival beyond two years is uncommon without complications like infections or , which further worsen . Recovery, when occurring, follows reafferentation of frontoparietal networks, but most patients remain dependent, with only 4-11% achieving independence depending on .

Evidence for Recovery and Long-Term Function

Recovery from a vegetative state, defined as the absence of behavioral evidence of awareness despite preserved sleep-wake cycles, is more probable in the initial months following onset, with rates declining sharply thereafter. In cases of (TBI), approximately 50% of patients regain some within the first year, whereas non-traumatic etiologies, such as anoxia, yield lower rates of 17% at 6 months and 7.5% at 24 months. Traumatic origins generally confer a superior compared to non-traumatic, with the latter considered permanent after 3 months and traumatic after 12 months in adults, based on multi-society consensus from aggregated clinical data. Evidence for late recovery, beyond these conventional windows, remains limited but documented in peer-reviewed case series and meta-analyses. Verified recoveries of consciousness more than 12 months post-traumatic injury or 3 months post-non-traumatic injury occur infrequently, with pooled rates from prolonged disorders of consciousness (DoC) studies indicating 17% achieving full consciousness among survivors tracked over extended periods. Isolated reports describe emergence after 20 months in TBI cases, often heralded by subtle neurophysiological changes like improved event-related potentials, though such instances do not alter the overall rarity. Systematic reviews of individual patient data highlight variability by and time since injury, with traumatic VS showing potential for delayed improvement up to 10 years post-onset in functional disability metrics. Long-term functional outcomes, even among those regaining , frequently involve significant . In a cohort analysis, nearly three-quarters of patients recovering awareness at 12 months post-injury exhibited severe on the Glasgow Outcome Scale, with only one-fifth achieving moderate and one-fifteenth good recovery. Survival rates in chronic VS hover below 30% at two years, with recovery around 21%, underscoring persistent challenges in achieving . Factors such as younger age and shorter duration of VS correlate with better trajectories, yet comprehensive follow-up reveals high mortality (up to 75% over five years in historical cohorts) and limited restoration of autonomy. These data emphasize that while recovery is empirically possible, sustained high-level function is exceptional and etiology-dependent.

Treatment Approaches

Supportive and Rehabilitative Strategies

Supportive care for patients in a vegetative state prioritizes physiological stability and complication prevention through a multidisciplinary including physicians, nurses, physical therapists, and respiratory specialists. Artificial nutrition and hydration via enteral feeding tubes, such as , are standard to meet caloric needs averaging 25-30 kcal/kg/day while monitoring for aspiration risks. Respiratory support often involves tracheostomy and intermittent suctioning to manage secretions, reducing incidence, which affects up to 50% of prolonged cases without intervention. Preventive measures include prophylaxis with to mitigate deep vein thrombosis risk, elevated in immobile patients at 20-50% without treatment, and anticonvulsants like for subclinical seizures detected via EEG in 10-20% of cases. Skin care protocols mandate repositioning every 2 hours to avert pressure ulcers, which develop in 15-25% of bedbound individuals absent such routines, alongside hygiene to curb urinary tract infections from indwelling catheters. Rehabilitative strategies focus on maintaining function and potentially fostering , though evidence for recovery remains limited beyond natural trajectories. Passive range-of-motion exercises, performed daily by physical and occupational therapists, preserve joint mobility and reduce rates by 30-50% in settings. Sensory stimulation programs, delivering structured auditory (e.g., familiar voices), visual (e.g., light patterns), and tactile inputs for 30-60 minutes daily, aim to enhance responsiveness but lack robust support; a 2002 Cochrane review of three controlled trials involving 68 patients found no reliable efficacy due to methodological flaws and inconsistent outcomes. Interdisciplinary assessments using tools like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised guide tailored interventions, with family education emphasizing consistent environmental structure to optimize potential gains. While such approaches support overall health—evidenced by improved survival in specialized units—randomized trials indicate minimal incremental benefit over supportive care alone for transitioning from vegetative to minimally conscious states, with recovery rates under 5% after 12 months post-trauma.

Pharmacological and Neuromodulation Interventions

, a and modulator, has demonstrated efficacy in accelerating functional recovery in patients with post-traumatic disorders of consciousness, including vegetative states, based on a multicenter randomized -controlled involving 184 participants conducted between 2005 and 2008, which reported faster gains on the Disability Rating Scale during 4 weeks of treatment compared to . This finding led to its inclusion as the sole recommended by clinical guidelines for promoting recovery in such patients, though effects may wane post-discontinuation and evidence is primarily from traumatic etiologies rather than anoxic or other causes. A 2025 systematic of drugs for disorders of consciousness identified and as the most effective agents overall, with improving Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) scores in multiple studies, albeit with variable response rates around 30-50% in heterogeneous cohorts. Zolpidem, a GABA_A receptor typically used for , exhibits paradoxical arousing effects in a subset of vegetative state patients, potentially by selectively desynchronizing dysfunctional cortical networks as evidenced by EEG changes in case series and small trials. A 2017 systematic review of its in non-insomnia neurological conditions, including persistent vegetative states, documented transient improvements in and motor function in approximately 5-10% of cases, linked to uneven receptor subunit distribution in damaged brains, but lacked large-scale randomized data and reported inconsistent replication. Such responses are rare and unpredictable, with no sustained recovery established beyond acute . Neuromodulation techniques, including noninvasive and invasive methods, aim to restore thalamocortical connectivity disrupted in vegetative states. (tDCS) applied to the has shown short-term behavioral improvements, such as increased CRS-R scores, in minimally conscious states bordering vegetative states, per a 2018 review of randomized trials indicating modest effect sizes (Cohen's d ≈ 0.5) but requiring further validation for pure vegetative cases. Repetitive (rTMS) targeting frontal regions yielded mixed results in a 2025 , with some studies reporting enhanced in 20-40% of vegetative patients post-10-20 sessions, though sham-controlled evidence remains preliminary and etiology-dependent. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of central thalamic nuclei represents an invasive option with case-based evidence of emergence in select chronic vegetative patients, as in a 2010 where bilateral electrode implantation led to command-following in one of three participants after 6 months, posited to enhance arousal networks via . However, a 2024 highlighted limited due to surgical risks, heterogeneous outcomes (response rates <20%), and absence of large randomized s, restricting its use to experimental protocols in non-progressing cases. Overall, neuromodulatory interventions show promise for modulating states but lack robust, replicated evidence for reliable vegetative state recovery, with ongoing s emphasizing combined pharmacological-neuromodulatory approaches.

Experimental and Emerging Technologies

(DBS) involves implanting electrodes in subcortical targets such as the central thalamic nuclei to modulate neural circuits disrupted in disorders of consciousness (DoC). In a 2023 retrospective study of 20 patients with prolonged DoC treated at a single center over 10 years, DBS led to clinical improvements in 70% of cases, with better outcomes in (MCS) patients compared to those in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), including gains in the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) scores up to 12 months post-implantation. A prospective of 14 patients with early VS/UWS or MCS reported that bilateral DBS of intralaminar thalamic nuclei resulted in 11 patients achieving functional independence or significant responsiveness, though long-term follow-up highlighted variability and risks like infection. These findings suggest DBS may enhance thalamocortical connectivity, but evidence remains limited by small cohorts and lack of randomized controls, with ethical concerns over patient selection. Non-invasive brain techniques, particularly repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), target cortical areas like the to induce . A 2021 of 60 VS patients found that 10 Hz rTMS over the right for 10 sessions improved CRS-R scores by an average of 4.2 points versus 1.1 in sham controls, correlating with EEG changes indicating increased cortical excitability. A of individual patient data from multiple studies confirmed rTMS efficacy in promoting recovery, with odds ratios favoring improvement in both VS/UWS and MCS subgroups, though effect sizes were modest and heterogeneous. Intermittent theta-burst stimulation, a variant, showed acute EEG perturbations in VS patients in a 2024 single-session study, suggesting potential for rapid circuit modulation but requiring further validation. Limitations include transient effects and inconsistent replication across protocols. Regenerative approaches, such as transplantation, aim to repair damaged neural tissue by promoting and reducing . Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal s (MSCs) administered intravenously in a 2020 pilot study of DoC patients reduced markers and improved CRS-R scores in 60% of VS/UWS cases over 6 months, attributed to paracrine effects enhancing endogenous repair. A 2023 preclinical-to-clinical translation effort transplanted neuronal precursors into the brains of severe models, yielding behavioral recovery in rodents and preliminary human data suggesting integration into host circuits. However, a 2016 review emphasized that while s show neuroprotective potential in animal models of leading to VS, human trials report variable engraftment rates below 10% and risks like tumor formation, underscoring the need for optimized delivery and strategies. Emerging modalities include low-intensity (LIFU), which non-invasively stimulates deep regions. A 2024 NIH-funded trial at Casa Colina Research Institute investigates LIFU for severe patients in VS/UWS, targeting thalamic and cortical networks with pulsed waves to avoid damage, building on preclinical evidence of enhancement. Combined senolytic drugs to clear senescent cells followed by neural stem cell activation represent speculative frontiers, with a 2025 review proposing they could amplify post- neurogenesis in global cerebral ischemia models mimicking VS, though no yet substantiate . Overall, these technologies hold promise for causal intervention in impaired systems but face challenges in scalability, patient stratification via biomarkers, and rigorous phase III trials to distinguish true recovery from or natural trajectories.

Epidemiology

Incidence and Demographic Patterns

The annual incidence of vegetative state (VS), particularly cases persisting for at least six months, is estimated at 5 to 25 per million population, based on data from multiple national registries including those in the and . Broader estimates for prolonged disorders of consciousness, encompassing VS, place new cases at approximately 2.6 per 100,000 per year from acute etiologies. These figures derive primarily from severe injuries, with traumatic causes accounting for a significant portion in younger cohorts and non-traumatic (e.g., hypoxic-ischemic) events more prevalent overall. Demographic patterns vary markedly by etiology. Traumatic VS, often resulting from motor vehicle collisions, falls, or assaults, disproportionately affects males aged 15 to 40 years, reflecting the of severe (TBI) where males comprise 70-80% of cases due to higher exposure to high-risk activities. In contrast, non-traumatic VS from anoxia, cerebrovascular events, or neurodegenerative processes is more common in older adults over 60, with a more balanced distribution, as these etiologies align with age-related comorbidities like . Meta-analyses of TBI survivors indicate no independent significant influence of age or on the likelihood of progressing to persistent VS once severe injury occurs, underscoring as the primary demographic driver. Sample data from clinical cohorts show overall male predominance (around 75%) and mean patient ages in the mid-30s, though global underreporting in low-resource settings may skew toward underestimation in elderly non-traumatic cases. Estimates of the of vegetative state (VS) range from to 25,000 adults and 4,000 to children in persistent VS as of the mid-1990s, with adult prevalence figures cited between 40 and 168 per million in subsequent analyses. More recent surveys of hospitalized and institutionalized patients indicate a lower point prevalence of 0.1 to 0.2 per 100,000 for VS/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, potentially reflecting improved reducing incidence or variations in diagnostic criteria and reporting scopes. For severe (TBI), the prevalence of persistent VS at six months post-injury has remained stable at approximately 2.77% over the past four decades, with no statistically significant temporal trend observed. Incidence rates for VS are estimated at 0.5 to 2.5 new cases per 100,000 population annually, a figure derived from 2005 data that continues to be referenced in recent epidemiological reviews without evidence of substantial decline or increase. Higher prevalence proportions among severe injury survivors are reported in developing countries (mean 7.0%) compared to developed ones (3.3%), attributable to differences in trauma care access and rehabilitation infrastructure rather than global incidence shifts. Overall, population-level trends show stability rather than marked changes, influenced by consistent etiologies like TBI and anoxia alongside steady advancements in preventing progression from but not eliminating the condition. Survival in VS varies by etiology, age, and care quality, with median times reported as less than 5 years for infants under 2 years but approaching 10 years for adults over 18 based on late-1990s actuarial analyses. Recent cohort data from TBI-related persistent VS indicate a median survival of 7 years ( 4–20 years), with 54% mortality over extended follow-up periods. Pooled survival rates from systematic reviews show 80.5% at 1 year, 72% at 3 years, and 69.7% at 8 years post-onset, reflecting prolonged viability with artificial and management but high long-term risks from complications like . For non-TBI causes, approximately 80% achieve 3-month , though recovery of remains rare beyond 6 months in most cases. No broad temporal trends in rates are documented across decades, as improvements in supportive care have offset some risks without fundamentally altering median outcomes, which remain etiology-dependent and often exceed prior pessimistic estimates.

Historical Context

Origins of the Concept

The philosophical roots of distinguishing basic life functions from higher cognition trace to Aristotle's De Anima (circa 350 BCE), where he posited a "vegetative soul" (threptikon) governing nutrition, growth, and reproduction in organisms lacking sensation or reason, analogous to plant life. In medical physiology, the term "vegetative" emerged to denote involuntary autonomic processes by the early 19th century, as French anatomist Xavier Bichat differentiated "vegetative" (organic, life-sustaining) from "animal" (sensory-motor) nervous functions in his 1800 Recherches Physiologiques sur la Vie et la Mort. This usage persisted, with American neurologist Walter Timme expanding on autonomic "vegetative" regulation in his 1928 monograph The Vegetative Nervous System. Isolated 19th-century descriptions applied "vegetative" to comatose patients exhibiting minimal responsiveness, with the Oxford English Dictionary citing a 1893 medical report of a "vegetative" state in prolonged unconsciousness. The modern clinical concept coalesced amid mid-20th-century advances in and , which enabled survival after profound injuries but revealed a distinct of apparent without awareness. Pre-1972 terms included German psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer's "apallic " (1940), denoting pallidal () disconnection leading to akinetic mutism-like states, and French "coma vigile" (1950s), describing eyes-open unresponsiveness. Scottish neurosurgeon Bryan Jennett and American neurologist Fred Plum formalized the diagnosis in their April 1, 1972, Lancet paper, "Persistent Vegetative State after Brain Damage: A in Search of a Name," defining it as chronic, irreversible brain damage yielding sleep-wake cycles, respiratory drive, and reflexes but no cognitive or volitional capacity.90242-5) Jennett and Plum emphasized the term's aptness for preserved "vegetative" (autonomic) functions amid absent higher integration, distinguishing it from (no arousal) or (preserved awareness).90242-5) This delineation addressed diagnostic ambiguity in post-anoxic or traumatic cases, influencing subsequent classifications like the Multi-Society criteria.

Key Milestones in Research and Classification

The formal classification of the vegetative state (VS) as a distinct disorder of consciousness was established in 1972 by Scottish neurosurgeon Bryan Jennett and American Fred Plum, who introduced the term "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) to describe patients emerging from into a condition of preserved —manifested by sleep-wake cycles and reflexive behaviors—but without evidence of or purposeful interaction with the environment. Jennett and Plum specified PVS as occurring at least one month after traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury, emphasizing its characterization by wakeful unresponsiveness and limited cerebral cortical function, while subcortical and mechanisms sustain vital autonomic processes.92642-5/abstract) This terminology drew on earlier, less standardized uses of "vegetative" in to denote passive, instinct-driven states akin to plant-like existence, but their 1972 paper provided the first systematic delineation, addressing a " in search of a name" amid rising cases from improved survival post-brain injury. In 1994, the Multi-Society on the Persistent Vegetative State, comprising representatives from major U.S. medical organizations including the American Academy of Neurology, issued a comprehensive consensus statement refining diagnostic criteria and prognostic guidelines. The defined VS as complete unawareness of self and environment, with intact sleep-wake cycles but no behavioral evidence of or volition; PVS was designated for durations exceeding one month, and "permanent VS" for cases unlikely to improve—typically after three months for traumatic etiologies or twelve months for nontraumatic ones, based on empirical recovery data from over 500 reviewed cases showing near-zero higher-order recovery beyond these thresholds. This report standardized assessment via serial behavioral observation, excluding confounding factors like or metabolic derangements, and highlighted etiology-specific outcomes, with traumatic PVS yielding better (about 50% partial recovery within a year) than anoxic or vascular causes (under 15%). A pivotal advancement in classification came in 2002 with the definition of the (MCS) by Joseph T. Giacino and colleagues, distinguishing it from VS to capture patients exhibiting inconsistent but reproducible signs of , such as following simple commands, visual pursuit, or intelligible verbalization, which indicate preserved thalamocortical connectivity absent in VS. Operationalized through the Aspen Neurobehavioral Conference criteria, MCS requires clear evidence of self or environmental beyond reflexive responses, addressing prior misclassification rates estimated at up to 40% when relying solely on VS-PVS frameworks. This refinement, validated against correlates like functional MRI showing task-related brain activation in MCS but not VS, improved diagnostic precision and underscored the continuum of consciousness disorders, influencing subsequent research into arousal- dissociation.

Controversies and Ethical Debates

Challenges to Diagnostic Reliability

The diagnosis of (VS), characterized by preserved arousal without detectable awareness, depends heavily on behavioral assessments that evaluate responses to sensory stimuli, commands, and environmental cues. These methods, such as serial observation of eye opening, tracking, and purposeful movements, are prone to subjective interpretation and inter-observer variability, as examiners may differ in detecting subtle or inconsistent signs of awareness. Standardized tools like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) mitigate some inconsistencies by providing structured protocols, yet studies comparing consensus clinical diagnoses to CRS-R assessments reveal discrepancies, with up to 43% of patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) receiving erroneous VS or (MCS) labels. A primary challenge arises in differentiating VS from MCS, where patients exhibit minimal but definite behavioral evidence of , such as following simple commands or localizing pain. Misdiagnosis rates for VS/unresponsive (UWS) are estimated at 30-40%, often because transient or low-frequency responses are overlooked or attributed to reflexive activity rather than volition. In one prospective study of 41 patients presumed to be in VS/UWS, 39% were reclassified as at least MCS upon rigorous evaluation, highlighting how reliance on non-standardized bedside exams can inflate VS . Factors exacerbating errors include fluctuating levels, effects (e.g., sedatives masking responses), and examiner , with lower reliability in non-specialized settings. Neuroimaging techniques further expose diagnostic limitations by detecting covert absent in behavioral tests. Functional MRI (fMRI) paradigms, such as mental tasks requiring willful activation (e.g., imagining or spatial navigation), have identified command-following in 5-9% of patients clinically diagnosed as VS, indicating preserved . Similarly, EEG-based detection of event-related potentials or frequency-specific responses to verbal commands has confirmed at bedside in a subset of VS cases, with one reporting positive findings in 16% of behaviorally unresponsive patients. These discrepancies underscore that behavioral criteria, established in frameworks like the Aspen Workgroup guidelines, capture only overt function and fail to account for dissociated where neural correlates of persist without motor output. While enhances prognostic accuracy, its integration remains inconsistent due to , cost, and interpretive challenges, perpetuating reliance on imperfect clinical judgment.

Conflicts Over Life-Sustaining Interventions

Conflicts over life-sustaining interventions, particularly artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH), frequently arise in patients diagnosed with vegetative state, now termed unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS), pitting against healthcare professionals. Families often demand continuation of ANH, viewing it as fundamental care rather than medical treatment and interpreting ambiguous patient movements as evidence of latent or recovery potential, which can override any known advance directives. Healthcare providers, conversely, advocate withdrawal based on established diagnostic criteria confirming irreversible non-responsiveness, arguing that ANH prolongs a futile, non-cognitive state without restoring function or alleviating presumed . These disputes stem from mismatched perceptions of the patient's , pain capacity, and overall , compounded by emotional factors such as surrogates' aversion to perceived harm like . Divergent treatment goals exacerbate tensions: surrogates may prioritize preserving biological life indefinitely, influenced by hope or relational bonds, while clinicians invoke futility principles, contending that interventions violate human dignity by sustaining mere physiological persistence absent higher function. Empirical assessments using tools like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) underpin professional recommendations, yet families' non-verbal interpretations of often sustain optimism, leading to prolonged conflicts that strain interdisciplinary teams and organizational resources. In documented cohorts, such as 43 Dutch UWS cases from 2000-2003, non-treatment decisions accounted for 24 deaths, with 9 following ANH withdrawal after exhaustive deliberation, illustrating how unresolved disagreements culminate in surrogate or judicial overrides. Resolution strategies emphasize preventive measures, including multidisciplinary diagnostic confirmation to affirm reliability, transparent communication to reconcile visions, and unified care protocols that prioritize over indefinite prolongation. consultations facilitate shared where feasible, though persistent intra-family or inter-party discord may escalate to legal , with outcomes varying by but often deferring to verified medical futility absent contrary wishes. Physicians may ethically object to initiating aggressive supports like tracheostomy in confirmed UWS, provided alternatives exist and objections align with professional integrity rather than blanket refusal. These conflicts underscore the causal primacy of diagnostic certainty in averting ethical impasses, as equivocal assessments amplify surrogate and prolong debates.

Personhood, Rights, and Societal Implications

The philosophical debate over in the vegetative state centers on whether the absence of detectable equates to a loss of moral status equivalent to that of a conscious . Proponents of consciousness-based criteria argue that requires capacities for , subjective experience, and relational interaction, which are empirically absent in persistent vegetative state (PVS), as evidenced by and behavioral assessments showing no integrated brain activity supporting . This view, rooted in sentientist ethics, posits that PVS patients lack interests beyond biological persistence, challenging obligations to sustain non-sentient life. Counterarguments emphasize the organism's inherent potentiality for recovery or prior , rejecting temporary —such as in reversible —as a disqualifier, since empirical data indicate rare but documented late recoveries even after years in PVS. Legally, patients in vegetative states retain rights to basic care but face contested authority over life-sustaining interventions, with courts in jurisdictions like the upholding withdrawal of artificial and hydration under and clauses when clear evidence of patient intent exists, as affirmed in cases interpreting battery doctrines. Ethically, however, this raises conflicts between sanctity-of-life principles, which demand continuation absent definitive proof of irreversible futility, and utilitarian assessments deeming prolonged PVS existence as devoid of benefit, given clinical data showing no or relational capacity. rights advocates critique such withdrawals as discriminatory, arguing misdiagnoses—occurring in up to 40% of cases via bedside exams—risk devaluing lives based on incomplete empirical assessments, potentially eroding protections for vulnerable populations. Societally, sustaining vegetative state patients imposes significant burdens, with estimates of 10,000 to 16,000 individuals in prolonged states in countries like the , requiring intensive care resources that divert funds from acute treatments, as annual costs per can exceed $100,000 in long-term facilities. caregivers report profound psychological strain, including moral distress over decisions and eroded social support networks, compounded by ethical dilemmas in interpreting "" without input. Broader implications include policy pressures for standardized prognostication to balance solidarity-based care—upholding societal duties to the vulnerable—against fiscal realism, as indefinite support without recovery potential strains systems amid aging populations and rising incidences. These tensions underscore causal realities: while technological advances prolong biological life, they do not restore , prompting debates on reallocating resources to empirically beneficial interventions.

Influential Individual Cases

One of the earliest and most pivotal cases involved , a 21-year-old resident who lapsed into a on April 14, 1975, following attributed to a combination of alcohol and barbiturates consumed at a party. She was diagnosed with a persistent vegetative state after prolonged anoxia damaged her brain, requiring to sustain life. Her parents petitioned the court to appoint her father as guardian and authorize discontinuation of the , arguing it aligned with her and refusal of extraordinary treatment; the Supreme Court ruled in their favor on March 31, 1976, establishing that families could exercise substituted judgment for incompetent patients in such states, provided no reasonable chance of recovery existed. Quinlan was weaned off the shortly thereafter and survived in a until her death from on June 11, 1985, at age 31, with autopsy confirming extensive consistent with irreversible brain damage. This case set precedents for patient autonomy and family decision-making in , influencing subsequent U.S. legal frameworks on withholding . Nancy Beth Cruzan, aged 25, suffered anoxic brain injury from a car accident on January 11, 1983, in , resulting in a persistent vegetative state confirmed after months without improvement despite rehabilitation efforts. Her parents sought to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration in 1988, citing her prior expressed wishes against prolonged , but a state trial court initially approved it based on evidence of her verbal statements to friends; the reversed this, requiring clear and convincing proof of her intent due to her incapacity. The U.S. upheld Missouri's standard in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health on June 25, 1990, affirming states' interests in preserving life but recognizing competent persons' rights to refuse treatment, thus extending Quinlan's principles to hydration and nutrition. New evidence of Cruzan's wishes emerged, leading a to authorize withdrawal on December 14, 1990; she died 12 days later. The ruling clarified evidentiary burdens for surrogate decisions, shaping advance directive laws and protocols nationwide. Terri Schiavo collapsed on February 26, 1990, at age 26 in due to from linked to an , entering a persistent vegetative state after two months of with no higher function recovery despite therapies. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, petitioned in 1998 to remove her tube after eight years, claiming it reflected her wishes; courts agreed after trials, but her parents contested, alleging misdiagnosis and potential for minimal . The case escalated through 14 state appeals, federal courts, congressional intervention via the Compromise on March 20, 2005, and a brief federal stay, culminating in the tube's final removal on March 18, 2005; Schiavo died of on March 31, 2005. revealed profound with only 615 grams of cerebral tissue—half normal—confirming permanent vegetative state and no evidence of abuse or treatable conditions. This highly publicized dispute highlighted diagnostic disputes, family conflicts, and political involvement in medical decisions, prompting 20 U.S. states to enact or amend guardianship and living will laws between 2005 and 2006.

Judicial Rulings and Policy Impacts

, the 1976 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in In re Quinlan established a precedent for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), ruling that Karen Ann Quinlan's under the federal Constitution allowed her guardian to direct removal of after confirming no reasonable possibility of recovery, though she survived in a vegetative state post-decision. This case prompted the development of surrogate decision-making frameworks and influenced the creation of living wills, emphasizing patient autonomy where prior wishes could be inferred. The 1990 U.S. ruling in Cruzan v. Director, Department of Health affirmed states' authority to demand clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's refusal of life-sustaining measures, upholding 's standard that barred withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) for Nancy Cruzan absent such proof, despite her PVS diagnosis from a 1983 anoxic injury. This decision reinforced constitutional protections for refusing treatment but deferred to state interests in preserving life, leading to policy shifts: by 1991, more states adopted similar evidentiary thresholds or expanded surrogate powers, while the federal mandated hospitals to inform patients of advance directive rights. The 2005 Florida courts' resolution of the , involving a woman in PVS since 1990, permitted her husband to authorize ANH cessation after six years of litigation, with Judge George Greer finding clear evidence she would not wish prolonged treatment; the Supreme Court unanimously upheld this, striking down "Terri's Law" as an unconstitutional legislative override of judicial guardianship. Federal interventions, including congressional acts and brief denial of , failed to intervene, solidifying deference to state probate processes. Policy repercussions included heightened scrutiny of guardianship conflicts and promotion of advance healthcare directives, with surveys post-case showing 70-80% public support for spousal authority in absent explicit wishes, though it exposed divisions over "" versus substituted judgment standards. In the , the 1993 House of Lords decision in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland authorized discontinuation of ANH for Anthony Bland, a 17-year-old in PVS since the 1989 , ruling that no doctor has a duty to provide futile treatment and that withholding nutrition—deemed medical intervention, not basic care—aligned with Bland's , as his existence lacked awareness or benefit. Bland died 13 days after tube removal on March 3, 1993, with the Lords clarifying death's cause as original brain injury, not withdrawal. This precedent distinguished PVS from other minimally conscious states, mandating court approval for ANH withdrawal in vegetative patients to safeguard against abuse, influencing the 2005 Mental Capacity Act's codification of best-interests assessments and advance decisions refusing treatment. These rulings collectively shifted policies toward procedural safeguards: in the U.S., emphasizing evidentiary burdens to prevent hasty terminations amid diagnostic uncertainties (e.g., misdiagnosis rates up to 40% in some studies), while in the UK, institutionalizing judicial oversight for PVS cases, as reaffirmed in 2018 guidance allowing agreed withdrawals without prior only if not PVS-confirmed. Globally, they spurred ethical guidelines from bodies like the American Academy of Neurology, advocating multi-disciplinary assessments before deeming permanence, and informed debates on , with economic analyses post-Schiavo estimating annual U.S. costs for prolonged vegetative care at billions, though rulings prioritized individual rights over fiscal pressures.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2987895/
  2. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405263302107
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4413244/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4993988/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2718857/
  6. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.58.3.349
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158215000261
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10664559/
  9. https://ejns.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41984-021-00111-3
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11646848/
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21040571/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3307077/
  13. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-8-68
  14. https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/brain-spinal-cord-and-nerve-disorders/coma-and-impaired-consciousness/vegetative-state
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15671583/
  16. https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2377-9-35
  17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25039901/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6972677/
  19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27295518/
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0964704X.2016.1184074
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31498704/
  22. https://www.dynamed.com/condition/unresponsive-wakefulness-syndrome
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3505640/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11465191/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4913176/
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221630080X
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrneurol.2012.246
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8793804/
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20101037/
  30. https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/coma-and-impaired-consciousness/vegetative-state-and-minimally-conscious-state
  31. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-023-02421-6
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811998904141
  33. http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/pdfs/laowsc04.pdf
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06871-1
  35. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1213904/full
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5265978/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811915000531
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094715924007086
  39. https://www.aan.com/globals/axon/assets/6111.pdf
  40. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/6007-coma-persistent-vegetative-state
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24711058/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10349666/
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33933691/
  44. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207067
  45. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/794212
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218313514
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4330787/
  48. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049933
  49. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095082
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15605342/
  51. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/coma-recovery-scale-revised
  52. https://www.physio-pedia.com/Coma_Recovery_Scale_%28Revised%29
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10701693/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S007961230917704X
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4349183/
  56. https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12883-019-1293-7
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39997570/
  58. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08666-9
  59. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/11/1406
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11417101/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8938964/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12233511/
  63. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200390
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11147696/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2351462/
  66. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1129466/full
  67. https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12883-020-01924-9
  68. https://www.ukonnetwerk.nl/media/f32m3czk/proefschrift-willemijn-van-erp.pdf
  69. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e8e8df
  70. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199406023302206
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7734616/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11104990/
  73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37246500/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2077634/
  75. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.694970/full
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079612309177075
  77. https://apm.amegroups.org/article/view/100770/html
  78. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2024.1465564/full
  79. https://www.rcp.ac.uk/media/ptcoggi5/pdoc-guidelines_final_online_0_0.pdf
  80. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005926
  81. https://www.polytrauma.va.gov/about/Emerging_Consciousness.asp
  82. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001427/full
  83. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102609
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8266715/
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014299925002869
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4775753/
  87. https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/review-insomnia-medication-may-wake-some-patients-vegetative-state
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6060218/
  89. https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-025-05429-0
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4006619/
  91. https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/article/6/5/fcae362/7818446
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46300-y
  93. https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neurosurg/128/4/article-p1189.xml
  94. https://svn.bmj.com/content/8/5/368
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8119637/
  96. https://www.aging-us.com/article/205746/text
  97. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/3/683
  98. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cns.14137
  99. https://www.casacolina.org/news-features/2024/september/-2-million-awarded-to-casa-colina-research-insti/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12502250/
  101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09602010443000489
  102. https://www.timeoutintensiva.it/archivio/Beghi.pdf
  103. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215518777285
  104. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27814303/
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335923460_Demographical_and_clinical_indices_for_long-term_evolution_of_patients_in_vegetative_or_in_minimally_conscious_state
  106. https://www.elsevier.es/en-revista-neurologia-english-edition--495-articulo-current-validity-diagnosis-permanent-vegetative-S2173580819300823
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16350961/
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25528282/
  109. https://www.fundacionsindano.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Q.tang-et-al.-2107-prevalence-of-persistent-vegetative-state-TBI.-Neurorehab..pdf
  110. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13835
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088789949900051X
  112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10513689/
  113. http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/pdfs/adfi16.pdf
  114. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/02/when-did-we-start-describing-comatose-patients-as-vegetative.html
  115. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4111204/
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7818633/
  117. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11839831/
  118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15668569/
  119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19622138/
  120. https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610%2814%2900692-6/abstract
  121. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.778951/full
  122. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0905370
  123. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736%2811%2961224-5/fulltext
  124. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19331781/
  125. https://jme.bmj.com/content/38/6/332
  126. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0247-8
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5824545/
  128. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2023.2280099
  129. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00306/full
  130. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13848
  131. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2594-21662022000200395&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
  132. https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources-and-statements-cms/faq-on-caring-for-patients-in-a-persistent-vegetative-state-pvs
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC501487/
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079612305500372
  135. https://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/journal/disability-rights-law
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8672806/
  137. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/12/dying-guidance-patients-persistent-vegetative-state
  138. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20503121231177550
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3678818/
  140. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005927
  141. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1976/70-n-j-10-0.html
  142. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405263302101
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1255938/
  144. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZD1.html
  145. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/evolution-surrogates-right-terminate-life-sustaining-treatment/2006-09
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC557072/
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC558485/
  148. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/261/
  149. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZO.html
  150. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/airedale-nhs-trust-v-bland.php
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4222155/
  152. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45003947
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.