Numerical Cincinnati Stroke Scale versus Stroke Severity Screening Tools for the Prehospital Determination of Large Vessel Occlusion.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Prehospital Emergency Care Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1080/10903127.2024.2430442
Holden M Wagstaff, Remle P Crowe, Scott T Youngquist, H Hill Stoecklein, Ali Treichel, Yao He, Jennifer J Majersik
{"title":"Numerical Cincinnati Stroke Scale versus Stroke Severity Screening Tools for the Prehospital Determination of Large Vessel Occlusion.","authors":"Holden M Wagstaff, Remle P Crowe, Scott T Youngquist, H Hill Stoecklein, Ali Treichel, Yao He, Jennifer J Majersik","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2430442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Previous research demonstrated that the numerical Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) identifies large vessel occlusion (LVO) at similar rates compared to dedicated LVO screening tools. We aimed to compare numerical CPSS to additional stroke scales using a national Emergency Medical Services (EMS) database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the ESO Data Collaborative, the largest EMS database with linked hospital data, we retrospectively analyzed prehospital patient records from 2022. Each EMS record was linked to corresponding emergency department (ED) and inpatient records through a data exchange platform. Prehospital CPSS was compared to the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool (C-STAT), the Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED), and the Balance Eyes Face Arm Speech Time (BE-FAST). The optimal prediction cut points for LVO screening were determined by intersecting the sensitivity and specificity curves for each scale. To compare the discriminative abilities of each scale among those diagnosed with LVO, we used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 17,442 prehospital records from 754 EMS agencies with ≥ 1 documented stroke scale of interest: 30.3% (n = 5,278) had a hospital diagnosis of stroke, of which 71.6% (n = 3,781) were ischemic; of those, 21.6% (n = 817) were diagnosed with LVO. CPSS score ≥ 2 was found to be predictive of LVO with 76.9% sensitivity, 68.0% specificity, and AUROC 0.787 (95% CI 0.722-0.801). All other tools had similar predictive abilities, with sensitivity/specificity/AUROC of: C-STAT 62.5%/76.5%/0.727 (0.555-0.899); FAST-ED 61.4%/76.1%/0.780 (0.725-0.836); BE-FAST 70.4%/67.1%/0.739 (0.697-0.788).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The less complex CPSS exhibited comparable performance to three frequently employed LVO detection tools. The EMS leadership, medical directors, and stroke system directors should weigh the complexity of stroke severity instruments and the challenges of ensuring consistent and accurate use when choosing which tool to implement. The straightforward and widely adopted CPSS may improve compliance while maintaining accuracy in LVO detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2430442","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Previous research demonstrated that the numerical Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) identifies large vessel occlusion (LVO) at similar rates compared to dedicated LVO screening tools. We aimed to compare numerical CPSS to additional stroke scales using a national Emergency Medical Services (EMS) database.

Methods: Using the ESO Data Collaborative, the largest EMS database with linked hospital data, we retrospectively analyzed prehospital patient records from 2022. Each EMS record was linked to corresponding emergency department (ED) and inpatient records through a data exchange platform. Prehospital CPSS was compared to the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool (C-STAT), the Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED), and the Balance Eyes Face Arm Speech Time (BE-FAST). The optimal prediction cut points for LVO screening were determined by intersecting the sensitivity and specificity curves for each scale. To compare the discriminative abilities of each scale among those diagnosed with LVO, we used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC).

Results: We identified 17,442 prehospital records from 754 EMS agencies with ≥ 1 documented stroke scale of interest: 30.3% (n = 5,278) had a hospital diagnosis of stroke, of which 71.6% (n = 3,781) were ischemic; of those, 21.6% (n = 817) were diagnosed with LVO. CPSS score ≥ 2 was found to be predictive of LVO with 76.9% sensitivity, 68.0% specificity, and AUROC 0.787 (95% CI 0.722-0.801). All other tools had similar predictive abilities, with sensitivity/specificity/AUROC of: C-STAT 62.5%/76.5%/0.727 (0.555-0.899); FAST-ED 61.4%/76.1%/0.780 (0.725-0.836); BE-FAST 70.4%/67.1%/0.739 (0.697-0.788).

Conclusions: The less complex CPSS exhibited comparable performance to three frequently employed LVO detection tools. The EMS leadership, medical directors, and stroke system directors should weigh the complexity of stroke severity instruments and the challenges of ensuring consistent and accurate use when choosing which tool to implement. The straightforward and widely adopted CPSS may improve compliance while maintaining accuracy in LVO detection.

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
用于院前确定大血管闭塞的辛辛那提卒中数字量表与卒中严重程度筛查工具。
目的:先前的研究表明,与专门的 LVO 筛查工具相比,辛辛那提院前卒中数字量表 (CPSS) 识别大血管闭塞 (LVO) 的比率相似。我们的目的是利用全国紧急医疗服务(EMS)数据库将数字 CPSS 与其他卒中量表进行比较:方法:我们使用 ESO 数据协作平台(ESO Data Collaborative)对 2022 年的院前患者记录进行了回顾性分析。通过数据交换平台,每份急救记录都与相应的急诊科(ED)和住院病人记录相链接。院前 CPSS 与辛辛那提卒中分流评估工具(C-STAT)、急诊目的地卒中分流现场评估(FAST-ED)和平衡眼面部手臂语言时间(BE-FAST)进行了比较。通过将每种量表的灵敏度和特异性曲线相交,确定了 LVO 筛查的最佳预测切点。为了比较每个量表对确诊为 LVO 患者的鉴别能力,我们使用了接收者操作曲线下面积 (AUROC):结果:我们从 754 家急救机构的 17,442 份院前记录中确定了≥ 1 个相关卒中量表:30.3%(n = 5278)的院前记录被医院诊断为卒中,其中 71.6%(n = 3781)为缺血性卒中;其中 21.6%(n = 817)被诊断为 LVO。研究发现,CPSS评分≥2可预测LVO,敏感性为76.9%,特异性为68.0%,AUROC为0.787(95% CI为0.722-0.801)。所有其他工具的预测能力相似,敏感性/特异性/AUROC 分别为C-STAT为62.5%/76.5%/0.727 (0.555-0.899);FAST-ED为61.4%/76.1%/0.780 (0.725-0.836);BE-FAST为70.4%/67.1%/0.739 (0.697-0.788):结论:不太复杂的 CPSS 与三种常用的 LVO 检测工具性能相当。EMS 领导、医疗主管和卒中系统主管在选择实施哪种工具时,应权衡卒中严重程度工具的复杂性以及确保一致和准确使用所面临的挑战。简单明了且被广泛采用的 CPSS 可提高依从性,同时保持 LVO 检测的准确性。
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
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
期刊最新文献
Key Takeaways and Progress on Leveraging EMS in Overdose Response Among Five Learning Collaborative States. Uses of Fibrinogen Concentrate in Management of Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy in the Prehospital Environment: A Scoping Review. Correlation Between EtCO2 and PCO2 in Patients Undergoing Critical Care Transport. The National Association of EMS Physicians Compendium of Prehospital Trauma Management Position Statements and Resource Documents. Prehospital Trauma Compendium: Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma- a position statement and resource document of NAEMSP.
×
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