Comparison of the Chinese ischemic stroke subclassification and Trial of Org 10172 in acute stroke treatment systems in minor stroke.

BACKGROUND

The underlying causes of minor stroke are difficult to assess. Here, we evaluate the reliability of the Chinese Ischemic Stroke Subclassification (CISS) system in patients with minor stroke, and compare it to the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) system.

METHODS

A total of 320 patients with minor stroke were retrospectively registered and categorized into different subgroups of the CISS and TOAST by two neurologists. Inter- and intra-rater agreement with the two systems were assessed with kappa statistics.

RESULTS

The percentage of undetermined etiology (UE) cases in the CISS system was 77.3 % less than that in the TOAST system, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The percentage of large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) in the CISS system was 79.7 % more than that in the TOAST system, which was also statistically significant (P < 0.001). The kappa values for inter-examiner agreement were 0.898 (P = 0.031) and 0.732 (P = 0.022) for the CISS and TOAST systems, respectively. The intra-observer reliability indexes were moderate (0.569 for neurologist A, and 0.487 for neurologist B).

CONCLUSIONS

The CISS and TOAST systems are both reliable in classifying patients with minor stroke. CISS classified more patients into known etiologic categories without sacrificing reliability.