Vol. 50 - 2014 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE 1 Do diagnostic differences between vegetative state and minimally conscious state patients correspond to differences in functioning and disability proiles? Results from an observational multi-center study on patients with DOC tioning and disability proiles and similar needs thus levels of care and assistance should not be different across the two conditions. Clinical rehabilitation impact. An ICF-based method- ology of data collection enables to describe VS and MCS patients’ functioning and disability: this is help- ful when rehabilitation programs based on the fea- tures of single patients with DOC need to be planned. KEY WORDS: Persistent vegetative state - Consciousness dis- order - Disability. T he broad category of DOC includes vegeta- tive state (VS) and minimally conscious state (MCS). VS is a post-coma disorder in which patients preserve wake-sleep cycles and show no signs of awareness of self and environment. They show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioural response to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli, and no evidence of lan- guage comprehension or expression. Hypothalamic and brainstem autonomic functions are preserved. 1, 2 MCS is a condition in which post-coma patients with global neuronal damage recover to a state of poor and inconsistent responsiveness to stimuli, but show unequivocal, though intermittent and limited, evi- dence of awareness of themselves and environment. The Aspen Neurobehavioral Conference expert pan- Neurology Public Health and Disability Unit Scientiic Directorate Neurological Institute C. Besta IRCCS Foundation Milan, Italy EUR J PHYS REHABIL MED 2014;50:1-2 D. SATTIN, V. COVELLI, M. PAGANI, A. M. GIOVANNETTI, A. RAGGI P. MEUCCI, M. CERNIAUSKAITE, R. QUINTAS, S. SCHIAVOLIN, M. LEONARDI * Background. Patients in vegetative (VS) and mini- mally conscious state (MCS) have different degrees of consciousness recovery but both display severe levels of disability. Aim. To describe and compare VS and MCS patients’ functioning and disability according to ICF model (In- ternational Classiication of Functioning, Disability and Health). Design. Observational cross-sectional multi-center study involving sixty-nine Italian centers. Setting. Patients recruited in post-acute, long-term care facilities and at home in Italy. Population. Adult patients in VS and MCS. Methods. ICF Functioning proiles were completed and, for each ICF chapter and domain, extension and severity indexes were developed. Indexes have been compared between VS and MCS patients with Mann Whitney U test. Descriptive statistics have been ap- plied to describe the most relevant categories that had a percentage of missing below 25% and that were re- ported as a problem by at least 50% of patients. Results. A total of 564 patients were enrolled: 396 in VS (mean age 56.8), 168 in MCS (mean age 54.2). Fifty-eight ICF categories were selected: of them, 24 were from Activity and Participation (A&P). Few dif- ferences between patients in VS and MCS were report- ed in Body Functions (BF), mostly referred to mental, sensory and digestive functions; among A&P, differ- ences were found only in learning chapter. For VS pa- tients less environmental barriers were reported than MCS patients. Conclusion. Patients in VS and MCS have similar func- *on behalf of National consortium on DOC. Corresponding author: D. Sattin, Neurology Public Health and Disability Unit – Scientiic Directorate, Neurological Institute C. Be- sta IRCCS Foundation, via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy. E-mail: davide.sattin@istituto-besta.it MINERVA MEDICA COPYRIGHT® This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies (either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo, or other proprietary information of the Publisher.