Kessarin Panichpisal1, Kenneth Nugent2, Maharaj Singh3, Richard Rovin1, Reji Babygirija3, Yogesh Moradiya4, Karen Tse-Chang5, Kimberly A Jones5, Katrina J Woolfolk5, Debbie Keasler5, Bhupat Desai5, Parinda Sakdanaraseth6, Paphavee Sakdanaraseth7, Alimohammad Moalem8, Nazli Janjua5,9. 1. Aurora Neuroscience Innovation Institute, Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA. 3. Aurora Research Institute, Aurora Sinai Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Baptist Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 5. Pomona Valley Hospital, Pomona, California, USA. 6. Department of Creative Arts, Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 7. Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 8. Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 9. Asia Pacific Comprehensive Stroke Institute, Pomona, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients with acute ischemic strokes due to large vessel occlusions (LVO) is critical. We propose a simple risk score model to predict LVO. METHOD: The proposed scale (Pomona Scale) ranges from 0 to 3 and includes 3 items: gaze deviation, expressive aphasia, and neglect. We reviewed a cohort of all acute stroke activation patients between February 2014 and January 2016. The predictive performance of the Pomona Scale was determined and compared with several National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) cutoffs (≥4, ≥6, ≥8, and ≥10), the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity (CPSS) scale, the Vision Aphasia and Neglect Scale (VAN), and the Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity Scale (PASS). RESULTS: LVO was detected in 94 of 776 acute stroke activations (12%). A Pomona Scale ≥2 had comparable accuracy to predict LVO as the VAN and CPSS scales and higher accuracy than Pomona Scale ≥1, LAMS, PASS, and NIHSS. A Pomona Scale ≥2 had an accuracy (area under the curve) of 0.79, a sensitivity of 0.86, a specificity of 0.70, a positive predictive value of 0.71, and a negative predictive value of 0.97 for the detection of LVO. We also found that the presence of either neglect or gaze deviation alone had comparable accuracy of 0.79 as Pomona Scale ≥2 to detect LVO. CONCLUSION: The Pomona Scale is a simple and accurate scale to predict LVO. In addition, the presence of either gaze deviation or neglect also suggests the possibility of LVO.
BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients with acute ischemic strokes due to large vessel occlusions (LVO) is critical. We propose a simple risk score model to predict LVO. METHOD: The proposed scale (Pomona Scale) ranges from 0 to 3 and includes 3 items: gaze deviation, expressive aphasia, and neglect. We reviewed a cohort of all acute stroke activation patients between February 2014 and January 2016. The predictive performance of the Pomona Scale was determined and compared with several National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) cutoffs (≥4, ≥6, ≥8, and ≥10), the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity (CPSS) scale, the Vision Aphasia and Neglect Scale (VAN), and the Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity Scale (PASS). RESULTS: LVO was detected in 94 of 776 acute stroke activations (12%). A Pomona Scale ≥2 had comparable accuracy to predict LVO as the VAN and CPSS scales and higher accuracy than Pomona Scale ≥1, LAMS, PASS, and NIHSS. A Pomona Scale ≥2 had an accuracy (area under the curve) of 0.79, a sensitivity of 0.86, a specificity of 0.70, a positive predictive value of 0.71, and a negative predictive value of 0.97 for the detection of LVO. We also found that the presence of either neglect or gaze deviation alone had comparable accuracy of 0.79 as Pomona Scale ≥2 to detect LVO. CONCLUSION: The Pomona Scale is a simple and accurate scale to predict LVO. In addition, the presence of either gaze deviation or neglect also suggests the possibility of LVO.
Authors: Jan F Scheitz; Azmil H Abdul-Rahim; Rachael L MacIsaac; Charith Cooray; Heidi Sucharew; Dawn Kleindorfer; Pooja Khatri; Joseph P Broderick; Heinrich J Audebert; Niaz Ahmed; Nils Wahlgren; Matthias Endres; Christian H Nolte; Kennedy R Lees Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Chung-Huan J Sun; Raul G Nogueira; Brenda A Glenn; Kerrin Connelly; Susan Zimmermann; Kim Anda; Deborah Camp; Michael R Frankel; Samir R Belagaje; Aaron M Anderson; Alexander P Isakov; Rishi Gupta Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ryan D Moore; John C Jackson; Sheila L Venkatesh; Steven D Quarfordt; Blaise W Baxter Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Bijen Nazliel; Sidney Starkman; David S Liebeskind; Bruce Ovbiagele; Doojin Kim; Nerses Sanossian; Latisha Ali; Brian Buck; Pablo Villablanca; Fernando Vinuela; Gary Duckwiler; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: William J Powers; Colin P Derdeyn; José Biller; Christopher S Coffey; Brian L Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Karen C Johnston; S Claiborne Johnston; Alexander A Khalessi; Chelsea S Kidwell; James F Meschia; Bruce Ovbiagele; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Mohamed S Teleb; Anna Ver Hage; Jaqueline Carter; Mahesh V Jayaraman; Ryan A McTaggart Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Kessarin Panichpisal; Sarah Erpenbeck; Paul Vilar; Reji P Babygirija; Maharaj Singh; M Riccardo Colella; Richard A Rovin Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2022-04-18
Authors: Shon Thomas; Paula de la Pena; Liam Butler; Oguz Akbilgic; Daniel M Heiferman; Ravi Garg; Rick Gill; Joseph C Serrone Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 2.116