Keenan Kevin J, Smith Wade S, Cole Sara B, Martin Christine, Hemphill J Claude, Madhok Debbie Y
Department of Neurology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Department of Neurology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
BMJ Neurol Open. 2022 Jul 11;4(2):e000272. doi: 10.1136/bmjno-2022-000272. eCollection 2022.
We studied a registry of Emergency Medical Systems (EMS) identified prehospital suspected stroke patients brought to an academic endovascular capable hospital over 1 year to assess the prevalence of disease and externally validate large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke prediction scales with a focus on predictive values.
All patients had last known well times within 6 hours and a positive prehospital Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale. LVO prediction scale scores were retrospectively calculated from emergency department arrival National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores. Final diagnoses were determined by chart review. Prevalence and diagnostic performance statistics were calculated. We prespecified analyses to identify scale thresholds with positive predictive values (PPVs) ≥80% and negative predictive values (NPVs) ≥95%. A secondary analysis identified thresholds with PPVs ≥50%.
Of 220 EMS transported patients, 13.6% had LVO stroke, 15.9% had intracranial haemorrhage, 20.5% had non-LVO stroke and 50% had stroke mimic diagnoses. LVO stroke prevalence was 15.8% among the 184 diagnostic performance study eligible patients. Only Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED) ≥7 had a PPV ≥80%, but this threshold missed 83% of LVO strokes. FAST-ED ≥6, Prehospital Acute Severity Scale =3 and Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation ≥7 had PPVs ≥50% but sensitivities were <50%. Several standard and lower alternative scale thresholds achieved NPVs ≥95%, but false positives were common.
Diagnostic performance tradeoffs of LVO prediction scales limited their ability to achieve high PPVs without missing most LVO strokes. Multiple scales provided high NPV thresholds, but these were associated with many false positives.
我们研究了一个紧急医疗系统(EMS)登记册,该登记册记录了在1年多时间里被送往一家具备血管内治疗能力的学术医院的院前疑似中风患者,以评估疾病的患病率,并对外验证大血管闭塞(LVO)性中风预测量表,重点关注预测价值。
所有患者最后已知健康时间在6小时内,且院前辛辛那提院前中风量表呈阳性。LVO预测量表分数通过急诊科入院时的美国国立卫生研究院中风量表分数进行回顾性计算。最终诊断通过病历审查确定。计算患病率和诊断性能统计数据。我们预先指定了分析方法,以确定阳性预测值(PPV)≥80%和阴性预测值(NPV)≥95%的量表阈值。二次分析确定了PPV≥50%的阈值。
在220例由EMS转运的患者中,13.6%患有LVO性中风,15.9%患有颅内出血,20.5%患有非LVO性中风,50%患有类似中风的诊断。在184例符合诊断性能研究的患者中,LVO性中风患病率为15.8%。只有急诊目的地现场评估中风分诊(FAST-ED)≥7的PPV≥80%,但该阈值遗漏了83%的LVO性中风。FAST-ED≥6、院前急性严重程度量表=3和快速动脉闭塞评估≥7的PPV≥50%,但敏感性<50%。几个标准和较低的替代量表阈值实现了NPV≥95%,但假阳性很常见。
LVO预测量表的诊断性能权衡限制了它们在不遗漏大多数LVO性中风的情况下实现高PPV的能力。多个量表提供了高NPV阈值,但这些阈值与许多假阳性相关。