Validating Existing Scales for Identification of Acute Stroke in an Inpatient Setting.

IF 0.9 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurohospitalist Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-15 DOI:10.1177/19418744221144343
Adriana Sari, Faddi G Saleh Velez, Nathan Muntz, Zachary Bulwa, Shyam Prabhakaran
{"title":"Validating Existing Scales for Identification of Acute Stroke in an Inpatient Setting.","authors":"Adriana Sari, Faddi G Saleh Velez, Nathan Muntz, Zachary Bulwa, Shyam Prabhakaran","doi":"10.1177/19418744221144343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>A significant proportion of strokes occur while patients are hospitalized for other reasons. Numerous stroke scales have been developed and validated for use in pre-hospital and emergency department settings, and there is growing interest to adapt these scales for use in the inpatient setting. We aimed to validate existing stroke scales for inpatient stroke codes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed charts from inpatient stroke code activations at an urban academic medical center from January 2016 through December 2018. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for each specified stroke scale including NIHSS, FAST, BE-FAST, 2CAN, FABS, TeleStroke Mimic, and LAMS. We also used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of stroke and to derive a novel scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 958 stroke code activations reviewed, 151 (15.8%) had a final diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The area under the curve (AUC) of existing scales varied from .465 (FABS score) to .563 (2CAN score). Four risk factors independently predicted stroke: (1) recent cardiovascular procedure, (2) platelet count less than 50 × 10<sup>9</sup> per liter, (3) gaze deviation, and (4) presence of unilateral leg weakness. Combining these 4 factors into a new score yielded an AUC of .653 (95% confidence interval [CI] .604-.702).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests that currently available stroke scales may not be sufficient to differentiate strokes from mimics in the inpatient setting. Our data suggest that novel approaches may be required to help with diagnosis in this unique population.</p>","PeriodicalId":46355,"journal":{"name":"Neurohospitalist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10091444/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurohospitalist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19418744221144343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: A significant proportion of strokes occur while patients are hospitalized for other reasons. Numerous stroke scales have been developed and validated for use in pre-hospital and emergency department settings, and there is growing interest to adapt these scales for use in the inpatient setting. We aimed to validate existing stroke scales for inpatient stroke codes.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts from inpatient stroke code activations at an urban academic medical center from January 2016 through December 2018. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for each specified stroke scale including NIHSS, FAST, BE-FAST, 2CAN, FABS, TeleStroke Mimic, and LAMS. We also used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of stroke and to derive a novel scale.

Results: Of the 958 stroke code activations reviewed, 151 (15.8%) had a final diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The area under the curve (AUC) of existing scales varied from .465 (FABS score) to .563 (2CAN score). Four risk factors independently predicted stroke: (1) recent cardiovascular procedure, (2) platelet count less than 50 × 109 per liter, (3) gaze deviation, and (4) presence of unilateral leg weakness. Combining these 4 factors into a new score yielded an AUC of .653 (95% confidence interval [CI] .604-.702).

Conclusion: This study suggests that currently available stroke scales may not be sufficient to differentiate strokes from mimics in the inpatient setting. Our data suggest that novel approaches may be required to help with diagnosis in this unique population.

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
验证现有的住院病人急性脑卒中识别量表。
背景和目的:很大一部分脑卒中发生在患者因其他原因住院期间。目前已开发并验证了许多用于院前和急诊科环境的卒中量表,将这些量表用于住院环境的兴趣日益浓厚。我们的目的是验证现有的卒中量表是否适用于住院病人卒中编码:我们回顾性地查看了一家城市学术医疗中心从 2016 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月期间启动的住院患者卒中代码的病历。对每个指定的卒中量表(包括 NIHSS、FAST、BE-FAST、2CAN、FABS、TeleStroke Mimic 和 LAMS)进行了接收器操作特征分析。我们还使用逻辑回归来确定卒中的独立预测因素,并得出一个新的量表:结果:在 958 次卒中代码激活中,有 151 次(15.8%)最终诊断为缺血性或出血性卒中。现有量表的曲线下面积(AUC)从 0.465(FABS 评分)到 0.563(2CAN 评分)不等。四个风险因素可独立预测中风:(1) 近期心血管手术,(2) 血小板计数低于 50 × 109/升,(3) 目光偏离,(4) 单侧腿部无力。将这 4 个因素合并成一个新的评分,其 AUC 为 0.653(95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.604-0.702):本研究表明,目前可用的脑卒中量表可能不足以区分住院环境中的脑卒中和模拟脑卒中。我们的数据表明,可能需要新的方法来帮助诊断这一特殊人群。
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
Neurohospitalist
Neurohospitalist CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
108
期刊最新文献
"Recurrent Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma Presenting with Diffuse Leptomeningeal Spread". Clinical Problem-Solving: A 19-Year-Old Woman With Progressive Neurological Decline and Multiple Intracranial Lesions. Comparison of Telemedicine-Administered Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke by Neurology Subspecialty: A Cross-Sectional Study. Complete Third Nerve Palsy: A Rare Occurrence in Fulminant IIH Case Report. Concurrent Miller Fisher Syndrome and Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.
×
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