Introduction: A significant proportion of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients who are evaluated through telestroke consultation are transferred to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (TSCs) for concern of large vessel occlusion (LVO). Patient triage selection is commonly based on the clinical suspicion of LVO, which lacks specificity and could result in unnecessary transfers. In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy of the most commonly used LVO recognition scales in telestroke setting. Methods: AIS patients transferred to TSCs for suspicion of an LVO were included in this retrospective study. Patients were evaluated by a stroke neurologist through a telestroke consult before transfer. The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score documented by the stroke neurologist was retrieved from medical records and used to calculate five other LVO recognition scales (Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation Scale [RACE], Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination [FAST-ED], Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity Scale [CPSSS], 3-item stroke scale [3I-SS], and Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity Scale [PASS]). We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, false positive rate (FPR), and false negative rate (FNR) of each score using published cutoffs and then examined all possible cutoff values for each of these scales in addition to the NIHSS. Results: A total of 439 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 48.5% of patients had an LVO confirmed on computed tomography angiogram. RACE score had the highest accuracy (78%). Overall, the five derived LVO recognition scores have at least 10% FNR. When examining all possible cutoff values, the NIHSS (cutoff of 6) had a 3% FNR but 73% FPR (false transfer). Conclusion: The use of the NIHSS and other LVO recognition scores over telestroke may result in unnecessary transfers. Better diagnostic tools that could maximize sensitivity with acceptable specificity are urgently needed.
Introduction: A significant proportion of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients who are evaluated through telestroke consultation are transferred to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (TSCs) for concern of large vessel occlusion (LVO). Patient triage selection is commonly based on the clinical suspicion of LVO, which lacks specificity and could result in unnecessary transfers. In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy of the most commonly used LVO recognition scales in telestroke setting. Methods: AIS patients transferred to TSCs for suspicion of an LVO were included in this retrospective study. Patients were evaluated by a stroke neurologist through a telestroke consult before transfer. The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score documented by the stroke neurologist was retrieved from medical records and used to calculate five other LVO recognition scales (Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation Scale [RACE], Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination [FAST-ED], Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity Scale [CPSSS], 3-item stroke scale [3I-SS], and Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity Scale [PASS]). We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, false positive rate (FPR), and false negative rate (FNR) of each score using published cutoffs and then examined all possible cutoff values for each of these scales in addition to the NIHSS. Results: A total of 439 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 48.5% of patients had an LVO confirmed on computed tomography angiogram. RACE score had the highest accuracy (78%). Overall, the five derived LVO recognition scores have at least 10% FNR. When examining all possible cutoff values, the NIHSS (cutoff of 6) had a 3% FNR but 73% FPR (false transfer). Conclusion: The use of the NIHSS and other LVO recognition scores over telestroke may result in unnecessary transfers. Better diagnostic tools that could maximize sensitivity with acceptable specificity are urgently needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
large vessel occlusion; mechanical thrombectomy; stroke; telemedicine
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Michael P Marks; Stephanie Kemp; Soren Christensen; Jenny P Tsai; Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez; Ryan A McTaggart; Michel T Torbey; May Kim-Tenser; Thabele Leslie-Mazwi; Amrou Sarraj; Scott E Kasner; Sameer A Ansari; Sharon D Yeatts; Scott Hamilton; Michael Mlynash; Jeremy J Heit; Greg Zaharchuk; Sun Kim; Janice Carrozzella; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Roland Bammer; Philip W Lavori; Joseph P Broderick; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L R Caplan; J D Schmahmann; C S Kase; E Feldmann; G Baquis; J P Greenberg; P B Gorelick; C Helgason; D B Hier Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 1990-02
Authors: Sami Al Kasab; Robert J Adams; Ellen Debenham; David J Jones; Christine Ann Holmstedt Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Jan Vargas; Alex M Spiotta; Kyle Fargen; Raymond D Turner; Imran Chaudry; Aquilla Turk Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Henry Zhao; Skye Coote; Lauren Pesavento; Leonid Churilov; Helen M Dewey; Stephen M Davis; Bruce C V Campbell Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Sharon D Yeatts; Janice Carrozzella; Lydia D Foster; Emmad Qazi; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin; Marc Ribo; Bernard Yan; Osama O Zaidat; Donald Frei; Rüdiger von Kummer; Kevin M Cockroft; Pooja Khatri; David S Liebeskind; Thomas A Tomsick; Yuko Y Palesch; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ali Reza Noorian; Nerses Sanossian; Kristina Shkirkova; David S Liebeskind; Marc Eckstein; Samuel J Stratton; Franklin D Pratt; Robin Conwit; Fiona Chatfield; Latisha K Sharma; Lucas Restrepo; Miguel Valdes-Sueiras; May Kim-Tenser; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 7.914