From the Department of Neurology (D.C., P.P., J.-M.L., A.L.F.), Program in Occupational Therapy (L.T.C.), Department of Radiology (L.T.C., J.-M.L.), and Department of Emergency Medicine (H.P., L.H., P.P., D.K.T.), Washington University School of Medicine, MO.
Stroke. 2014 May;45(5):1275-9. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003955. Epub 2014 Mar 18.
The last known normal (LKN) time is a critical determinant of IV tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV tPA) eligibility; however, the accuracy of emergency medical services (EMS)-reported LKN times is unknown. We determined the congruence between neurologist-determined and EMS-reported LKN times and identified predictors of incongruent LKN times.
We prospectively collected EMS-reported LKN times for patients brought into the emergency department with suspected acute stroke and calculated the absolute difference between the neurologist-determined and EMS-reported LKN times (|ΔLKN|). We determined the rate of inappropriate IV tPA use if EMS-reported times had been used in place of neurologist-determined times. Univariate and multivariable linear regression assessed for any predictors of prolonged |ΔLKN|.
Of 251 patients, mean and median |ΔLKN| were 28 and 0 minutes, respectively. |ΔLKN| was <15 minutes in 91% of the entire cohort and <15 minutes in 80% of patients with a diagnosis of stroke (n=86). Of patients who received IV tPA, none would have been incorrectly excluded from IV tPA if the EMS LKN time had been used. Conversely, of patients who did not receive IV tPA, 6% would have been incorrectly included for IV tPA consideration had the EMS time been used. In patients with wake-up stroke symptoms, EMS underestimated LKN times: mean neurologist LKN time-EMS LKN time=208 minutes. The presence of wake-up stroke symptoms (P<0.0001) and older age (P=0.019) were independent predictors of prolonged |ΔLKN|.
EMS-reported LKN times were largely congruent with neurologist-determined times. Focused EMS training regarding wake-up stroke symptoms may further improve accuracy.
最后已知正常时间(LKN)是决定静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(IV tPA)治疗是否适宜的关键因素;然而,尚不清楚急救医疗服务(EMS)报告的 LKN 时间的准确性。我们旨在确定神经科医生确定的 LKN 时间与 EMS 报告的 LKN 时间之间的一致性,并确定 LKN 时间不一致的预测因素。
我们前瞻性地收集了因疑似急性卒中被送入急诊室的患者的 EMS 报告的 LKN 时间,并计算了神经科医生确定的 LKN 时间与 EMS 报告的 LKN 时间之间的绝对差值(|ΔLKN|)。如果使用 EMS 报告的时间替代神经科医生确定的时间,我们确定了不适当使用 IV tPA 的发生率。单变量和多变量线性回归评估了任何可能导致 |ΔLKN|延长的预测因素。
在 251 例患者中,平均和中位数 |ΔLKN|分别为 28 分钟和 0 分钟。整个队列中 91%的患者 |ΔLKN|小于 15 分钟,80%的诊断为卒中的患者(n=86)|ΔLKN|小于 15 分钟。在接受 IV tPA 治疗的患者中,如果使用 EMS LKN 时间,没有患者会被错误地排除在 IV tPA 治疗之外。相反,如果使用 EMS 时间,6%未接受 IV tPA 治疗的患者可能会被错误地纳入 IV tPA 考虑范围。对于有觉醒性卒中症状的患者,EMS 低估了 LKN 时间:神经科医生 LKN 时间-EMS LKN 时间=208 分钟。觉醒性卒中症状的存在(P<0.0001)和年龄较大(P=0.019)是 |ΔLKN|延长的独立预测因素。
EMS 报告的 LKN 时间与神经科医生确定的 LKN 时间基本一致。针对觉醒性卒中症状的 EMS 培训可能会进一步提高准确性。