Determining the Ability of the Vision, Aphasia, and Neglect (VAN) Stroke Scale to Identify Large Vessel Occlusion Strokes Within the Prehospital Setting: A Prospective Cohort Study

Lydia Leavitt
{"title":"Determining the Ability of the Vision, Aphasia, and Neglect (VAN) Stroke Scale to Identify Large Vessel Occlusion Strokes Within the Prehospital Setting: A Prospective Cohort Study","authors":"Lydia Leavitt","doi":"10.5195/ijms.2022.1737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: There are several stroke assessment scales designed to identify large vessel occlusions (LVOs), and a rising area of research is concerned with identifying those that outperform others in accuracy. One scale that has shown promise in identifying identify large vessel occlusions (LVOs) is the vision, aphasia, and neglect (VAN) scale. Our understanding of this scale’s true performance, however, is limited as a majority of studies have been carried out in the hospital setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate the ability of the VAN scale to predict LVOs in the prehospital setting.\nMethods: Prospective cohort study comparing emergency medical service personnel administered VAN results to hospital discharge diagnoses to evaluate VAN’s ability to predict a large vessel occlusion stroke. Main outcome measures included VAN sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy. \nResults: Emergency medical service personnel administered the VAN assessment to 185 patients suspected of having a stroke. VAN had a sensitivity of 0.81 (CI, 0.61 to 0.93), specificity 0.56 (CI, 0.48 to 0.64), positive predictive value 0.24 (CI, 0.61 to 0.34), negative predictive value 0.95 (CI, 0.87 to 0.98), positive likelihood ratio 1.87 (CI, 1.45 – 2.40), negative likelihood ratio 0.33 (CI, 0.15 – 0.73), and 60% accuracy (CI, 53% - 61%) for large vessel occlusion identification.\nConclusion: When negative, VAN offers relatively high assurance that the patient is not suffering a large vessel occlusion stroke. However, VAN is non-specific for large vessel occlusions and results in many false positives. Therefore, pre-hospital decision-making regarding triage should not rely exclusively on VAN due to possible over-triage to facilities with endovascular capabilities.","PeriodicalId":73459,"journal":{"name":"International journal of medical students","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of medical students","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2022.1737","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There are several stroke assessment scales designed to identify large vessel occlusions (LVOs), and a rising area of research is concerned with identifying those that outperform others in accuracy. One scale that has shown promise in identifying identify large vessel occlusions (LVOs) is the vision, aphasia, and neglect (VAN) scale. Our understanding of this scale’s true performance, however, is limited as a majority of studies have been carried out in the hospital setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate the ability of the VAN scale to predict LVOs in the prehospital setting. Methods: Prospective cohort study comparing emergency medical service personnel administered VAN results to hospital discharge diagnoses to evaluate VAN’s ability to predict a large vessel occlusion stroke. Main outcome measures included VAN sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy.  Results: Emergency medical service personnel administered the VAN assessment to 185 patients suspected of having a stroke. VAN had a sensitivity of 0.81 (CI, 0.61 to 0.93), specificity 0.56 (CI, 0.48 to 0.64), positive predictive value 0.24 (CI, 0.61 to 0.34), negative predictive value 0.95 (CI, 0.87 to 0.98), positive likelihood ratio 1.87 (CI, 1.45 – 2.40), negative likelihood ratio 0.33 (CI, 0.15 – 0.73), and 60% accuracy (CI, 53% - 61%) for large vessel occlusion identification. Conclusion: When negative, VAN offers relatively high assurance that the patient is not suffering a large vessel occlusion stroke. However, VAN is non-specific for large vessel occlusions and results in many false positives. Therefore, pre-hospital decision-making regarding triage should not rely exclusively on VAN due to possible over-triage to facilities with endovascular capabilities.
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
确定视力、失语和忽视(VAN)卒中量表识别院前大血管闭塞性卒中的能力:一项前瞻性队列研究
有几种中风评估量表被设计用于识别大血管闭塞(LVOs),并且越来越多的研究领域关注于识别那些在准确性上优于其他的量表。一个在识别大血管闭塞(LVOs)方面显示出希望的量表是视力、失语和忽视(VAN)量表。然而,由于大多数研究都是在医院环境中进行的,我们对该量表的真实性能的理解是有限的。本研究的目的是评估VAN量表在院前环境下预测LVOs的能力。方法:前瞻性队列研究,比较急诊医务人员使用的VAN结果与出院诊断,以评估VAN预测大血管闭塞性卒中的能力。主要结局指标包括VAN敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值、阳性和阴性似然比以及准确性。结果:急诊医务人员对185例疑似脑卒中患者进行了VAN评估。VAN的敏感性为0.81 (CI, 0.61 ~ 0.93),特异性为0.56 (CI, 0.48 ~ 0.64),阳性预测值为0.24 (CI, 0.61 ~ 0.34),阴性预测值为0.95 (CI, 0.87 ~ 0.98),阳性似然比为1.87 (CI, 1.45 ~ 2.40),阴性似然比为0.33 (CI, 0.15 ~ 0.73),鉴别大血管闭塞的准确率为60% (CI, 53% ~ 61%)。结论:当阴性时,VAN提供了相对较高的保证,患者没有患大血管闭塞性卒中。然而,VAN对大血管闭塞无特异性,导致许多假阳性。因此,院前关于分诊的决策不应完全依赖于VAN,因为可能会对具有血管内功能的设施进行过度分诊。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Rare Case Report of Neurological Condition: Moersch-Woltman Syndrome with Positive Anti-GAD Antibodies. Scientific Conferences for Medical Students: Why do We Need more Spaces for Students to Enhance Research? Stereological Estimation and Zonal Distribution of the Hepatotoxic Effects of Doxorubicin on the Female Albino Rat (Rattus Norvegicus) From Student to Physician: Determining Which Lifestyle Behaviors May Be Risk Factors for Burnout at a South Florida Medical School Cover, Credits, & Content
×
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