Prehospital stroke detection scales: A head-to-head comparison of 7 scales in patients with suspected stroke.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY International Journal of Stroke Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1177/17474930241275123
Luuk Dekker, Walid Moudrous, Jasper D Daems, Ewout Fh Buist, Esmee Venema, Marcel Dj Durieux, Erik W van Zwet, Els Llm de Schryver, Loet Mh Kloos, Karlijn F de Laat, Leo Am Aerden, Diederik Wj Dippel, Henk Kerkhoff, Ido R van den Wijngaard, Marieke Jh Wermer, Bob Roozenbeek, Nyika D Kruyt
{"title":"Prehospital stroke detection scales: A head-to-head comparison of 7 scales in patients with suspected stroke.","authors":"Luuk Dekker, Walid Moudrous, Jasper D Daems, Ewout Fh Buist, Esmee Venema, Marcel Dj Durieux, Erik W van Zwet, Els Llm de Schryver, Loet Mh Kloos, Karlijn F de Laat, Leo Am Aerden, Diederik Wj Dippel, Henk Kerkhoff, Ido R van den Wijngaard, Marieke Jh Wermer, Bob Roozenbeek, Nyika D Kruyt","doi":"10.1177/17474930241275123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several prehospital scales have been designed to aid paramedics in identifying stroke patients in the ambulance setting. However, external validation and comparison of these scales are largely lacking.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare all published prehospital stroke detection scales in a large cohort of unselected stroke code patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all stroke detection scales. Scales were reconstructed with prehospital acquired data from two observational cohort studies: the Leiden Prehospital Stroke Study (LPSS) and PREhospital triage of patients with suspected STrOke (PRESTO) study. These included stroke code patients from four ambulance regions in the Netherlands, including 15 hospitals and serving 4 million people. For each scale, we calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for a diagnosis of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). Moreover, we assessed the proportion of stroke patients who received reperfusion treatment with intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy that would have been missed by each scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 14 scales, of which 7 (CPSS, FAST, LAPSS, MASS, MedPACS, OPSS, and sNIHSS-EMS) could be reconstructed. Of 3317 included stroke code patients, 2240 (67.5%) had a stroke (1528 ischemic, 242 hemorrhagic, 470 TIA) and 1077 (32.5%) a stroke mimic. Of ischemic stroke patients, 715 (46.8%) received reperfusion treatment. Accuracies ranged from 0.60 (LAPSS) to 0.66 (MedPACS, OPSS, and sNIHSS-EMS), sensitivities from 66% (LAPSS) to 84% (MedPACS and sNIHSS-EMS), and specificities from 28% (sNIHSS-EMS) to 49% (LAPSS). MedPACS, OPSS, and sNIHSS-EMS missed the fewest reperfusion-treated patients (10.3-11.2%), whereas LAPSS missed the most (25.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prehospital stroke detection scales generally exhibited high sensitivity but low specificity. While LAPSS performed the poorest, MedPACS, sNIHSS-EMS, and OPSS demonstrated the highest accuracy and missed the fewest reperfusion-treated stroke patients. Use of the most accurate scale could reduce unnecessary stroke code activations for patients with a stroke mimic by almost a third, but at the cost of missing 16% of strokes and 10% of patients who received reperfusion treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":14442,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stroke","volume":" ","pages":"17474930241275123"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241275123","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Several prehospital scales have been designed to aid paramedics in identifying stroke patients in the ambulance setting. However, external validation and comparison of these scales are largely lacking.

Aims: To compare all published prehospital stroke detection scales in a large cohort of unselected stroke code patients.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all stroke detection scales. Scales were reconstructed with prehospital acquired data from two observational cohort studies: the Leiden Prehospital Stroke Study (LPSS) and PREhospital triage of patients with suspected STrOke (PRESTO) study. These included stroke code patients from four ambulance regions in the Netherlands, including 15 hospitals and serving 4 million people. For each scale, we calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for a diagnosis of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). Moreover, we assessed the proportion of stroke patients who received reperfusion treatment with intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy that would have been missed by each scale.

Results: We identified 14 scales, of which 7 (CPSS, FAST, LAPSS, MASS, MedPACS, OPSS, and sNIHSS-EMS) could be reconstructed. Of 3317 included stroke code patients, 2240 (67.5%) had a stroke (1528 ischemic, 242 hemorrhagic, 470 TIA) and 1077 (32.5%) a stroke mimic. Of ischemic stroke patients, 715 (46.8%) received reperfusion treatment. Accuracies ranged from 0.60 (LAPSS) to 0.66 (MedPACS, OPSS, and sNIHSS-EMS), sensitivities from 66% (LAPSS) to 84% (MedPACS and sNIHSS-EMS), and specificities from 28% (sNIHSS-EMS) to 49% (LAPSS). MedPACS, OPSS, and sNIHSS-EMS missed the fewest reperfusion-treated patients (10.3-11.2%), whereas LAPSS missed the most (25.5%).

Conclusions: Prehospital stroke detection scales generally exhibited high sensitivity but low specificity. While LAPSS performed the poorest, MedPACS, sNIHSS-EMS, and OPSS demonstrated the highest accuracy and missed the fewest reperfusion-treated stroke patients. Use of the most accurate scale could reduce unnecessary stroke code activations for patients with a stroke mimic by almost a third, but at the cost of missing 16% of strokes and 10% of patients who received reperfusion treatment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
院前卒中检测量表:在疑似脑卒中患者中对 7 种量表进行正面比较。
背景:设计了几种院前量表以帮助救护人员在救护环境中识别卒中患者。目的:比较所有已发表的院前卒中检测量表,并对大量未选择的卒中患者进行编码:方法: 我们进行了系统的文献检索,以确定所有卒中检测量表。根据两项观察性队列研究(莱顿院前卒中研究(LPSS)和疑似 STrOke 患者院前分诊研究(PRESTO))获得的院前数据重建了量表。这些研究包括荷兰四个救护区域的中风编码患者,其中包括 15 家医院,服务人口达 400 万。我们计算了每种量表诊断中风(缺血性、出血性或 TIA)的准确性、灵敏度和特异性。此外,我们还评估了接受静脉溶栓或血管内血栓切除术再灌注治疗的脑卒中患者中,因每种量表而漏诊的比例:我们确定了 14 个量表,其中 7 个(CPSS、FAST、LAPSS、MASS、MedPACS、OPSS 和 sNIHSS-EMS)可以重建。在纳入的 3317 位中风编码患者中,2240 位(67.5%)为中风(1528 位缺血性、242 位出血性、470 位 TIA),1077 位(32.5%)为中风模拟。缺血性中风患者中有 715 人(46.8%)接受了再灌注治疗。准确度从 0.60(LAPSS)到 0.66(MedPACS、OPSS 和 sNIHSS-EMS)不等,灵敏度从 66%(LAPSS)到 84%(MedPACS 和 sNIHSS-EMS)不等,特异性从 28%(sNIHSS-EMS)到 49%(LAPSS)不等。MedPACS、OPSS 和 sNIHSS-EMS 遗漏的再灌注治疗患者最少(10.3-11.2%),而 LAPSS 遗漏的患者最多(25.5%):结论:院前卒中检测量表一般具有较高的灵敏度,但特异性较低。结论:院前卒中检测量表普遍具有高灵敏度但低特异性的特点。LAPSS 的表现最差,而 MedPACS、sNIHSS-EMS 和 OPSS 的准确性最高,遗漏的再灌注治疗卒中患者最少。使用最准确的量表可将模拟中风患者不必要的中风代码激活减少近三分之一,但代价是漏诊 16% 的中风患者和 10% 接受再灌注治疗的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Stroke
International Journal of Stroke 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
6.00%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Stroke is a welcome addition to the international stroke journal landscape in that it concentrates on the clinical aspects of stroke with basic science contributions in areas of clinical interest. Reviews of current topics are broadly based to encompass not only recent advances of global interest but also those which may be more important in certain regions and the journal regularly features items of news interest from all parts of the world. To facilitate the international nature of the journal, our Associate Editors from Europe, Asia, North America and South America coordinate segments of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Prehospital blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke recurrence after transcatheter PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Advancing stroke safety and efficacy through early tirofiban administration after intravenous thrombolysis: The multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ASSET IT trial protocol. Predictors of futile recanalization in ischemic stroke patients with low baseline NIHSS. Anticoagulation Usage and Thrombolytic Therapy in Subjects with Atrial Fibrillation Associated Ischaemic Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1