探索全球前沿学术脉络

The Unsteady Return of Command-Following: Recovery and Instability of Bedside Motor Command-Following After Acute Brain Injury

Background/Objective: Following a verbal command marks the bedside transition from unresponsiveness to overt recovery of consciousness after acute brain injury. Its timing across phenotypes, stability once present, and dependence on sedation are uncharacterized at scale. Methods: Retrospective cohort of adults with acute brain injury, first intensive care unit stay, MIMIC-IV. Command-following was the Glasgow Coma Scale motor response "Obeys Commands." Among patients not following commands at admission, cumulative incidence was estimated with death or hospice and discharge without recovery as competing events. Instability was quantified as transient first recovery and threshold crossings; examinations were tagged for concurrent sedation. Principal findings were externally validated in the multicenter eICU Collaborative Research Database. Results: Of 13,900 brain-injured patients with three or more motor examinations, 5,498 (39.6%) were not following commands at admission. The cumulative incidence of first command-following was 43.5% by 24 hours and 65.0% by 14 days, ranging at 14 days from 36.9% in anoxic injury to 77.2% in ischemic stroke (anoxic versus ischemic stroke at 72 hours, difference 0.41; adjusted P = .002). Among 3,573 patients who recovered, the first recovery was transient in 22.2%, and 62.4% crossed the threshold repeatedly. Non-following was strongly associated with sedation, consistent with an arousal-dependent examination. In eICU, the 14-day incidence was 64.8%, and transient first recovery was 22.7%, closely matching the primary cohort. Conclusions: After acute brain injury, overt bedside command-following returns early but unsteadily, with phenotype-dependent timing, threshold fluctuation, and strong dependence on sedation. A single charted observation is an unreliable index of the underlying state.

Unscreenable: The Burden, Structure, and Analytic Consequences of "Unable to Assess" Delirium Documentation in the Intensive Care Unit

Objective: To quantify the burden, structure, and downstream analytic consequences of "Unable to Assess" (UTA) delirium documentation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design: Retrospective cross-sectional and repeated-measures study. Setting: A single US academic medical center (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV [MIMIC-IV], 2008-2019). Patients: 72,944 adult ICU stays with at least 1 delirium screen. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Among 610,632 screens, 130,455 (21.4%; 95% CI, 21.0%-21.8%) were recorded as UTA, exceeding the 119,052 (19.5%) scored positive. The UTA fraction rose from 2.0% at a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of 0 to 97.8% at RASS -4; 22.0% of UTA screens occurred in arousable patients, where UTA was associated with mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; 95% CI, 3.17-3.71) and non-English primary language (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 3.43-4.08). Building the delirium label three ways from the same patients shifted prevalence modestly (32.1% to 30.8%) and prediction (area under the curve, 0.737 to 0.719) but most affected the delirium-mortality association: in a baseline-adjusted model the OR was 4.12 (95% CI, 3.88-4.36) under complete-case handling and fell to 2.16 (95% CI, 2.06-2.27) when UTA was recoded as negative. UTA was recoverable from the observed clinical state (area under the curve, 0.95). Conclusions: In this ICU cohort, Unable to Assess was the most common recorded delirium result other than Negative, exceeding positive screens; recoding it as negative roughly halved the apparent delirium-mortality association by relabeling deeply sedated, high-mortality patients. Delirium datasets should preserve and report UTA, whose concentration among arousable non-English-speaking patients is a measurable equity target.

Default Handling of the Non-Assessable Verbal Glasgow Coma Scale Misclassifies Illness Severity in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

Background: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a universal neurologic severity score in the intensive care unit and is incorporated into APACHE, SOFA, mortality prediction models, ICU benchmarking, and quality metrics. In mechanically ventilated patients, however, the verbal component cannot be assessed. Common conventions, including assigning a normal total GCS of 15 or excluding patients with missing verbal scores, may misclassify the sickest patients as neurologically normal or remove them from analysis. Objective: To quantify non-assessable verbal GCS examinations after acute brain injury and determine how different handling conventions affect severity scoring and mortality-model performance across two independent critical care databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with acute brain injury during their first ICU stay in MIMIC-IV, with replication in eICU-CRD. A verbal examination was considered non-assessable when documented as No Response-ETT. We measured the burden and determinants of non-assessability, compared the MIMIC-IV derived GCS convention with a component-aware GCS, and evaluated mortality-model handling strategies. Results: Among 14,230 patients, 45.2% had a non-assessable verbal examination, and 47.5% of ventilated patients had no assessable verbal score in the first 24 hours. Non-assessability was strongly associated with mechanical ventilation and mortality. The MIMIC-IV derived GCS assigned a score of 15 to 42.9% of patients and placed 11.6% in the lowest severity category despite eye and motor findings consistent with GCS [≤]9. Complete-case handling excluded 28.5% of patients, who accounted for 50.2% of deaths. Similar distortions were observed in eICU-CRD/APACHE across 171 hospitals. Discussion: Default-to-normal scoring can make severely ill intubated patients appear neurologically normal, while complete-case analysis removes the highest-risk patients. Conclusion: Non-assessable verbal GCS in mechanically ventilated patients should be explicitly flagged and reported in ICU severity scores, risk-adjusted mortality models, and benchmarking systems.