Skip to main content

Persistent Vegetative State: An apt description for the media coverage of PVS

The New England Journal of Medicine released a study today revealing some awareness in a minority of patients diagnosed with Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Researchers used functional MRI tests on 54 patients with PVS or minimally conscious state (MCI). The MCI patient data is interesting but the meat of the study is in the 23 patients diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, meaning that clinically all exams showed no signs of awareness. Four of these 23 patients showed brain activity in areas similar as healthy control subjects when given specific commands. One of these four patients was also able to respond to factual statements correctly by using a technique similar to answering yes-no questions.

My favorite part of the article is in the discussion section:
In the future, this approach could be used to address important clinical questions. For example, patients could be asked if they are feeling any pain, and this information could be useful in determining whether analgesic agents should be administered.
This would be the dawn of a new era where we have new tools to evaluate the symptoms of those who cannot verbally or physically communicate with us at the bedside. The caveat is the most patients with PVS in this study showed no signs of awareness and could not communicate in any significant manner even when placed in the fMRI machine.

Take a guess though what the media headlines focus on:
  • Scientists read the minds of the living dead (New Zealand Herald)
  • Patients in 'vegetative' state can think and communicate (The Telegraph)
  • Brain scan shows awareness in vegetative patients (BBC News)
  • Brains of vegetative patients show life (LA Times)
  • Study Finds Cognition in Vegetative Patients (Wall Street Journal)
These headlines are just wrong. They give the impression that all patients with PVS are aware and can communicate. In truth, this study showed that a minority of patients with PVS showed some signs of awareness, and those happened to only be in those who suffered from a traumatic brain injury (not from other causes such as anoxic brain injury). To be fair, there were some more appropriate headlines including Newsday with “Some vegetative brains show signs of awareness” and BusinessWeeks “Brain Scans Suggest Some Vegetative Patients May Be Aware”, but overall the media continues to show limited signs of self-awareness when reporting on journal articles.

Reference:
Monti, M., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Coleman, M., Boly, M., Pickard, J., Tshibanda, L., Owen, A., & Laureys, S. (2010). Willful Modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness New England Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905370

Comments

monitor said…
I still think that miracles can still happen. We don't know what the future holds. But we know who holds the future. Lets give these patients and their families some hope.
Eric Widera said…
I agree that hope is important. Patients and their families may hope for miracles, hope for cures, and hope for relief from suffering. What concerns me is not that patients, families, and health care providers hold out these hopes. What concerns me is the misuse or manupulation of hope to drive traffic to news outlets.
guym said…
The "just wrong" media headlines that Eric showed us are, in part at least, the result of the cocksure attitudes many of us in medicine have put forward to the families of patients in a 'vegetative state.' If you can find it, take a look at PVS expert Ronald Cranford's examination of Nancy Cruzan (a "Frontline" documentary) or his remarkable interview with Joe Scarborough about Terri Schiavo on MSNBC (at ). He may be 'right,' but he comes off as arrogant. And, when arrogance is shown to be wrong - even slightly - it promotes skepticism and the kinds of headlines we are now seeing.

-Guy
Alex Smith said…
The link to the disturbing MSNBC interview that Guy Micco mentions above can be found here.

Can I just say that "Scientists read the minds of the living dead" may be wrong, but it's soooo creative!
Eric Widera said…
Guy, I agree that physicians can often come across as arrogant in the media or even when talking to patients. This can lead to interest in sensational headlines around PVS. The problem though is that certain news outlets are bending over backwards to create sensationalism in this story. Take the very first line of coverage of this article by the NY Daily news.

"New research suggests that some patients thought to be brain-dead are able to communicate - and can even answer simple questions"

The NY Daily news (only one of many examples of this) has now included patients who are brain dead into the study protocol. The problem is that in no way does the NEJM article involve "brain-dead" patients. I can't help to think that they used the term "brain-dead" for a reason, and not just because of a complete lack of awareness of these conditions. I may be an arrogant doctor, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I can compete with the news media juggernauts that can twist a story into some grotesque form of its old self.
guym said…
Some writers for the popular 'news media' surely do look to sensational headlines to sell papers - though I don't know the full history of this, I suspect it's long, and yellow. But, physicians and others who 'should know better' are confused too! A wonderful study by by Stuart Youngner in 1989 of nearly 200 physicians and nurses "likely to be involved in organ procurement for transplantation" showed how little many of them understood about what they were supposed to know: 38% thought PVS patients were "dead." And, 32% said that, while they considered the brain-dead patient to be dead, they thought this because "no matter what was done the patient would die soon anyway" or because the quality of their life was unacceptable.
I do wonder what a study of this sort today would find. People, including medical professionals, are still confused about PVS and brain death. (Re the latter, note the President's Council on Bioethics' 2008 report "Controversies in the Determination of Death")
Eric Widera said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric Widera said…
I completely agree that there is plenty of confusion among physicians – just see the GeriPal post on Sanjay Gupta’s book Cheating Death

A similar issue was brought up today in NPRs “On the Media”. They interviewed The Lancet's editor Richard Horton. He described how the publication of the deeply flawed autism/MMR vaccine study changed the way the journal with the new media.

Here is an excerpt:

“The lesson we learned is that anything that we publish will be picked up and used. It certainly made us much more risk averse, much more conservative”...” You cannot have a closed discussion the scientific community now-a-days”...“We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now. We don’t seem to be able to do is have a rational conversation in the public space about difficult controversial issues without people drawing a conclusion which could be very very adverse.”
I posted on this as well on Pallimed (here.)
Thanks for the media links. I can't bring myself to read them, as I only have a certain daily tolerance for intellectual laziness and malfeasance, which is usually exceeded by the morning news.

I think a key point in all of this is that it doesn't necessarily change the fundamental medical ethical analysis regarding medical decision-making for these patients. It *may* change it for individual families of course, but the question has never been, at its root, if these patients have any cortical activity or not. Instead it's whether or not they'd want their lives to be prolonged via invasive medical treatments in their current state and with their prognosis. Having a modicum of awareness may impact decision-making to be sure (for some families, although not in predictable ways), but it does not fundamentally change how these decisions should be approached.

I am also surprised no one has yet brought up the Captain Pike scenario of where this technology could lead for those few % of patients considered to be in PVS who have some awareness.
Anonymous said…
What a great resource!

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Lost in Translation: Google’s Translation of Palliative Care to ‘Do-Nothing Care’

by: Cynthia X. Pan, MD, FACP, AGSF (@Cxpan5X)

My colleagues often ask me: “Why are Chinese patients so resistant to hospice and palliative care?” “Why are they so unrealistic?” “Don’t they understand that death is part of life?” “Is it true that with Chinese patients you cannot discuss advance directives?”

As a Chinese speaking geriatrician and palliative care physician practicing in Flushing, NY, I have cared for countless Chinese patients with serious illnesses or at end of life.  Invariably, when Chinese patients or families see me, they ask me if I speak Chinese. When I reply “I do” in Mandarin, the relief and instant trust I see on their faces make my day meaningful and worthwhile.

At my hospital, the patient population is about 30% Asian, with the majority of these being Chinese. Most of these patients require language interpretation.  It becomes an interesting challenge and opportunity, as we often need to discuss advance directives, goals of care, and end of life care options…