I came across something interesting the other day when I was looking at the PDF Guidelines for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) and Persistent Symptoms from the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation, namely, the difference between Post-Concussion Syndrome and Post-Concussive Disorder.
Apparently, they’re not the same. I had thought they were interchangeable, but I guess they’re not.
Diagnostic Criteria for Post-Concussion Syndrome (ICD-10)
A. History of head trauma with loss of consciousness preceding symptom onset by a maximum of 4 weeks.
B. Symptoms in 3 or more of the following symptom categories:
- Headache, dizziness, malaise, fatigue, noise tolerance
- Irritability, depression, anxiety, emotional lability
- Subjective concentration, memory, or intellectual difficulties without neuropsychological evidence of marked impairment
- Reduced alcohol tolerance
- Preoccupation with above symptoms and fear of brain damage with hypochondriacal concern and adoption of sick role
Diagnostic Criteria for Postconcussional Disorder (DSM-IV)
A. A history of head trauma that has caused significant cerebral concussion.
Note: The manifestations of concussion include loss of consciousness, posttraumatic amnesia, and less commonly, posttraumatic onset of seizures. The specific method of defining this criterion needs to be established by further research.
B. Evidence from neuropsychological testing or quantified cognitive assessment of difficulty in attention (concentrating, shifting focus of attention, performing simultaneous cognitive tasks) or memory (learning or recall of information).
C. Three (or more) of the following occur shortly after the trauma and last at least 3 months:
- Becoming fatigued easily
- Disordered sleep
- Vertigo or dizziness
- Irritability or aggression on little or no provocation
- Anxiety, depression, or affective instability
- Changes in personality (e.g., social or sexual inappropriateness)
- Apathy or lack of spontaneity
D. The symptoms in criteria B and C have their onset following head trauma or else represent a substantial worsening of preexisting symptoms.
E. The disturbance causes significant impairment in social or occupational functioning and represents a significant decline from a previous level of functioning. In school-age children, the impairment may be manifested by a significant worsening in school or academic performance dating from the trauma.
F. The symptoms do not meet criteria for Dementia Due to Head Trauma and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., Amnestic Disorder Due to Head Trauma, Personality Change Due to Head Trauma).
PCS is apparently a situation where you have head trauma with loss of consciousness (I think the DSM-IV needs to be updated, since concussion does NOT require loss of consciousness, and that fact has confused a lot of people and caused them to take concussion less seriously, when there was not LOC). And PCS is about “subjective” difficulties that haven’t been demonstrated with neuropsychological evidence.
Now, a couple of red flags go up for me — and it has more to do with the DSM, which I have some problems with anyway, than it does with the Guidelines. First, that loss of consciousness requirement. That can lead a lot of people down a flawed path. The other thing is the “subjective” part, which makes it sound a little bit like it’s all in your head? Well, technically, it is, but there seems to be a certain psychological aspect to it — then again, it is the DSM, so there you go.
Now, on to Post-Concussional Disorder… It requires a history of head trauma that has caused “significant cerebral concussion”. So, who decides what constitutes “significant”? Loss of consciousness, post-traumatic amnesia, seizures… What if you get totally messed up, but none of those things happened to you?
I think this is one of the first flaws in this set of guidelines — it relies on the DSM off the bat to psychologically define what are actually complex conditions that have very physiological roots and causes and issues. Plus, that thing about loss of consciousness… That’s troubling, as this may lead doctors astray — yet again — in to the weeds of gauging “how serious was your concussion” based on the injury itself, rather than the complex cascade of events and conditions after the actual injury.
But later on page 7, they go on to say
There has been debate as to whether persistent symptoms are best attributed to biological or psychological factors. It now appears that a variety of interacting neuropathological and psychological contributors both underlie and maintain postconcussive symptoms. One source of controversy has been the observation that the symptoms found to persist following mTBI are not specific to this condition. They may also occur in other diagnostic groups, including those with chronic pain, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and are observed to varying extent among healthy individuals.
So, it’s good that they’re acknowledging that there are complex contributors. And it’s good that they’re pointing out that symptoms we’ve got can also be found in other groups — though I have to wonder why it’s to be expected that a condition would have “only” certain symptoms that were all its own… I can think of a whole handful of conditions which “share” symptoms with each other, yet are not dismissed as made-up and are treated with care. Anyway, that’s another patch of weeds for another time.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — traumatic brain injury is a continuously re-traumatizing condition that just doesn’t quit. It can linger and morph and transform both itself and you over the course of days, months, years… sometimes to the point where you don’t even recognize yourself and your life anymore.
Which is where we get into the drawbacks of a set of guidelines like this document. I’ve seen some comments by people about its limitations, and yes, I’m starting to see them now that I’m getting deeper into it. I’m only 7 pages in, after all. Initially, I was really excited that there were these kinds of guidelines, and I still do think they offer a great service, in that they attempt to speak directly to doctors and healthcare providers. In that respect, I don’t think that relying so heavily on research and clinical studies is such a bad thing. That’s what doctors pay attention to. “Anecdotal evidence” is viewed with a mix of skepticism and scorn in most medical circles I’ve encountered, and it’s only in the past ten years or so that “evidence-based medicine” has gotten much of a foothold in the mainstream. Now it seems to be quite popular, but still the clinical studies seem to be considered the gold standard against which other sources of information are measured.
So, for what it’s worse, for better or for worse, we’re stuck with clinical studies and limited research, to make our case with the medical establishment.
It’s a little bothersome.
[pause to regain composure]
But hey, at least someone is making the effort here.
And that’s a plus.
Anyway, on a personal note, my neuropsych is out of town for the next two weeks, so I’ll have till mid-April to go it alone without someone to bounce ideas off of, and basically practice my everyday socialization chops. It’s funny, how those weekly visits serve to balance me out and keep me grounded. The times when I’ve gone it alone for a few weeks, I’ve shown up at their office a little loopy and straying back into the old territory I used to inhabit that was filled with chimeras and borderline delusions (in the loose sense — not real delusions — not yet, anyway). Somehow my neuropsych knows how to talk to me in a way that gets me to rethink my fundamental thought processes and come up with better ideas than I had when I first stopped in to see them.
I’ve always been independent to a fault, and now I find myself feeling dependent on a clinician. Ironic, that.
Anyway, it’s late and even though it’s Saturday night and I can sleep in tomorrow, I am absolutely bushed and I know it’s time to go to bed. I had a good day today. Did a lot of reading and writing and figured a few things out.