Point-of-care brain injury evaluation of conscious awareness: wide scale deployment of portable HCS EEG evaluation.

Survivors of severe brain injury may remain in a decreased state of conscious awareness for an extended period of time. Clinical scales are used to describe levels of consciousness but rely on behavioural responses, precipitating misdiagnosis. We have previously utilized event-related potentials (ERPs) to circumvent reliance on behavioural responses. However, practical implementation barriers limit the clinical utility of ERP assessment at point-of-care (POC). To address this challenge, we developed the Halifax Consciousness Scanner (HCS)-a rapid, semi-automated electroencephalography system. The current study evaluated: (i) HCS feasibility in sub-acute, POC settings nationwide; (ii) ERP P300 responses in patients with acquired brain injury versus healthy controls; and (iii) correlations within and between clinical measures and P300 latencies. We assessed 28 patients with severe, chronic impairments from brain injuries and contrasted the results with healthy control data (n = 100). Correlational analyses examined relationships between P300 latencies and the commonly used clinical scales. P300 latencies were significantly delayed in patients compared to healthy controls (P < 0.05). Clinical assessment scores were significantly inter-correlated and correlated significantly with P300 latencies (P < 0.05). In sub-acute and chronic care settings, the HCS provided a physiological measure of neurocognitive processing at POC for patients with severe acquired brain injury, including those with disorders of consciousness.

Botulinum toxin A versus bupivacaine trigger point injections for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a randomised double blind crossover study.

The treatment of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is diverse and includes trigger point injections of various substances including local anesthetics, steroids and Botulinum toxin A (BTX A). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of trigger point injections using BTX A versus bupivacaine, both in combination with a home-based rehabilitation program. To be enrolled, subjects first had to demonstrate responsiveness to bupivacaine trigger point injection. In this single center, double blind, randomized, cross-over trial, 18 patients with MPS received trigger point injections of either 25 units Botulinum toxin A or 0.5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine per trigger point. A maximum of eight trigger points were injected per subject. Subjects were followed until their pain returned to 75% or more of their pre-injection pain for two consecutive weeks, after which there was a 2 week wash-out period. The subjects then crossed over and had the same trigger points injected with the other agent. All subjects participated in a home exercise program involving static stretches of the affected muscles. Both treatments were effective in reducing pain when compared to baseline (P=0.0067). There was, however, no significant difference between the BTX A and 0.5% bupivacaine groups in duration or magnitude of pain relief, function, satisfaction or cost of care (cost of injectate excluded). Considering the high cost of BTX A, bupivacaine is deemed a more cost-effective injectate for MPS.