• Xiang Wu, Li Xie, Jin Lei, Jiemin Yao, Jiarong Li, Lixin Ruan, Jun Hong, Guodong Zheng, Yangyu Cheng, Liansheng Long, Jiancun Wang, Chuanping Huang, Qiuyou Xie, Xuelei Zhang, Jianghong He, Xuebin Yu, Shouhua Lv, Zhaosheng Sun, Dai Liu, Xin Li, Jianxin Zhu, Xiaoliang Yang, Dongdong Wang, Yijun Bao, MaasAndrew I RAIRDepartment of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium., David Menon, Yajun Xue, Jiyao Jiang, Junfeng Feng, Guoyi Gao, and ACES Participants.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
• Intensive Care Med. 2023 Jun 1; 49 (6): 633644633-644.

PurposeSevere traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to acute coma and may result in prolonged disorder of consciousness (pDOC). We aimed to determine whether right median nerve electrical stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for accelerating emergence from coma after TBI.MethodsThis randomised controlled trial was performed in 22 centres in China. Participants with acute coma at 7-14 days after TBI were randomly assigned (1:1) to either routine therapy and right median nerve electrical stimulation (RMNS group) or routine treatment (control group). The RMNS group received 20 mA, 300 μs, 40 Hz stimulation pulses, lasting 20 s per minutes, 8 h per day, for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who regained consciousness 6 months post-injury. The secondary endpoints were Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Full Outline of Unresponsiveness scale (FOUR), Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R), Disability Rating Scale (DRS) and Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores reported as medians on day 28, 3 months and 6 months after injury, and GCS and FOUR scores on day 1 and day 7 during stimulation. Primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat set.ResultsBetween March 26, 2016, and October 18, 2020, 329 participants were recruited, of whom 167 were randomised to the RMNS group and 162 to the control group. At 6 months post-injury, a higher proportion of patients in the RMNS group regained consciousness compared with the control group (72.5%, n = 121, 95% confidence interval (CI) 65.2-78.7% vs. 56.8%, n = 92, 95% CI 49.1-64.2%, p = 0.004). GOSE at 3 months and 6 months (5 [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7] vs. 4 [IQR 2-6], p = 0.002; 6 [IQR 3-7] vs. 4 [IQR 2-7], p = 0.0005) and FOUR at 28 days (15 [IQR 13-16] vs. 13 [interquartile range (IQR) 11-16], p = 0.002) were significantly increased in the RMNS group compared with the control group. Trajectory analysis showed that significantly more patients in the RMNS group had faster GCS, CRS-R and DRS improvement (p = 0.01, 0.004 and 0.04, respectively). Adverse events were similar in both groups. No serious adverse events were associated with the stimulation device.ConclusionRight median nerve electrical stimulation is a possible effective treatment for patients with acute traumatic coma, that will require validation in a confirmatory trial.© 2023. The Author(s).

15 keywords...

hide…