T Truc My Nguyen1, Ido R van den Wijngaard1,2,3, Jan Bosch4, Eduard van Belle5, Erik W van Zwet6, Tamara Dofferhoff-Vermeulen2, Dion Duijndam5, Gaia T Koster1, Els L L M de Schryver7, Loet M H Kloos8, Karlijn F de Laat9, Leo A M Aerden10, Stas A Zylicz11, Marieke J H Wermer1,3, Nyika D Kruyt1,3. 1. Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Neurology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands. 3. University Neurovascular Center Leiden-The Hague, the Netherlands. 4. Emergency Medical Services Hollands-Midden, Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Emergency Medical Services Haaglanden, The Hague, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Neurology, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Neurology, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Neurology, Haga Hospital, The Hague, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Neurology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis Hospital, Delft, the Netherlands. 11. Department of Neurology, Langeland Hospital, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Importance: The efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for symptomatic large anterior vessel occlusion (sLAVO) sharply decreases with time. Because EVT is restricted to comprehensive stroke centers, prehospital triage of patients with acute stroke codes for sLAVO is crucial, and although several prediction scales are already in use, external validation, head-to-head comparison, and feasibility data are lacking. Objective: To conduct external validation and head-to-head comparisons of 7 sLAVO prediction scales in the emergency medical service (EMS) setting and to assess scale feasibility by EMS paramedics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted between July 2018 and October 2019 in a large urban center in the Netherlands with a population of approximately 2 million people and included 2 EMSs, 3 comprehensive stroke centers, and 4 primary stroke centers. Participants were consecutive patients aged 18 years or older for whom an EMS-initiated acute stroke code was activated. Of 2812 acute stroke codes, 805 (28.6%) were excluded, because no application was used or no clinical data were available, leaving 2007 patients included in the analyses. Exposures: Applications with clinical observations filled in by EMS paramedics for each acute stroke code enabling reconstruction of the following 7 prediction scales: Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS); Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE); Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool; Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity (PASS); gaze-face-arm-speech-time; Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination; and gaze, facial asymmetry, level of consciousness, extinction/inattention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Planned primary and secondary outcomes were sLAVO and feasibility rates (ie, the proportion of acute stroke codes for which the prehospital scale could be reconstructed). Predictive performance measures included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the Youden index, and predictive values. Results: Of 2007 patients who received acute stroke codes (mean [SD] age, 71.1 [14.9] years; 1021 [50.9%] male), 158 (7.9%) had sLAVO. Accuracy of the scales ranged from 0.79 to 0.89, with LAMS and RACE scales yielding the highest scores. Sensitivity of the scales ranged from 38% to 62%, and specificity from 80% to 93%. Scale feasibility rates ranged from 78% to 88%, with the highest rate for the PASS scale. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that all 7 prediction scales had good accuracy, high specificity, and low sensitivity, with LAMS and RACE being the highest scoring scales. Feasibility rates ranged between 78% and 88% and should be taken into account before implementing a scale.
Importance: The efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for symptomatic large anterior vessel occlusion (sLAVO) sharply decreases with time. Because EVT is restricted to comprehensive stroke centers, prehospital triage of patients with acute stroke codes for sLAVO is crucial, and although several prediction scales are already in use, external validation, head-to-head comparison, and feasibility data are lacking. Objective: To conduct external validation and head-to-head comparisons of 7 sLAVO prediction scales in the emergency medical service (EMS) setting and to assess scale feasibility by EMS paramedics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted between July 2018 and October 2019 in a large urban center in the Netherlands with a population of approximately 2 million people and included 2 EMSs, 3 comprehensive stroke centers, and 4 primary stroke centers. Participants were consecutive patients aged 18 years or older for whom an EMS-initiated acute stroke code was activated. Of 2812 acute stroke codes, 805 (28.6%) were excluded, because no application was used or no clinical data were available, leaving 2007 patients included in the analyses. Exposures: Applications with clinical observations filled in by EMS paramedics for each acute stroke code enabling reconstruction of the following 7 prediction scales: Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS); Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE); Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool; Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity (PASS); gaze-face-arm-speech-time; Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination; and gaze, facial asymmetry, level of consciousness, extinction/inattention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Planned primary and secondary outcomes were sLAVO and feasibility rates (ie, the proportion of acute stroke codes for which the prehospital scale could be reconstructed). Predictive performance measures included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the Youden index, and predictive values. Results: Of 2007 patients who received acute stroke codes (mean [SD] age, 71.1 [14.9] years; 1021 [50.9%] male), 158 (7.9%) had sLAVO. Accuracy of the scales ranged from 0.79 to 0.89, with LAMS and RACE scales yielding the highest scores. Sensitivity of the scales ranged from 38% to 62%, and specificity from 80% to 93%. Scale feasibility rates ranged from 78% to 88%, with the highest rate for the PASS scale. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that all 7 prediction scales had good accuracy, high specificity, and low sensitivity, with LAMS and RACE being the highest scoring scales. Feasibility rates ranged between 78% and 88% and should be taken into account before implementing a scale.
Authors: Michael V Mazya; Annika Berglund; Niaz Ahmed; Mia von Euler; Staffan Holmin; Ann-Charlotte Laska; Jan M Mathé; Christina Sjöstrand; Einar E Eriksson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
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: Mirjam R Heldner; Christoph Zubler; Heinrich P Mattle; Gerhard Schroth; Anja Weck; Marie-Luise Mono; Jan Gralla; Simon Jung; Marwan El-Koussy; Rudolf Lüdi; Xin Yan; Marcel Arnold; Christoph Ozdoba; Pasquale Mordasini; Urs Fischer Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Fabricio O Lima; Gisele S Silva; Karen L Furie; Michael R Frankel; Michael H Lev; Érica C S Camargo; Diogo C Haussen; Aneesh B Singhal; Walter J Koroshetz; Wade S Smith; Raul G Nogueira Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Chelsea A Boyd; Mahesh V Jayaraman; Grayson L Baird; William S Einhorn; Matthew T Stib; Michael K Atalay; Jerrold L Boxerman; Ana P Lourenco; Gaurav Jindal; Douglas T Hidlay; Eleanor L DiBiasio; Ryan A McTaggart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Esmee Venema; Adrien E Groot; Hester F Lingsma; Wouter Hinsenveld; Kilian M Treurniet; Vicky Chalos; Sanne M Zinkstok; Maxim J H L Mulder; Inger R de Ridder; Henk A Marquering; Wouter J Schonewille; Marieke J H Wermer; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos; Diederik W J Dippel; Jonathan M Coutinho; Bob Roozenbeek Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Boris Keselman; Annika Berglund; Niaz Ahmed; David Grannas; Mia von Euler; Staffan Holmin; Ann-Charlotte Laska; Jan M Mathé; Christina Sjöstrand; Einar E Eriksson; Michael V Mazya Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2022-02-23
Authors: Natalia Pérez de la Ossa; Sònia Abilleira; Tudor G Jovin; Álvaro García-Tornel; Xavier Jimenez; Xabier Urra; Pere Cardona; Dolores Cocho; Francisco Purroy; Joaquin Serena; Luis San Román Manzanera; Rosa Maria Vivanco-Hidalgo; Mercè Salvat-Plana; Angel Chamorro; Miquel Gallofré; Carlos A Molina; Erik Cobo; Antoni Davalos; Marc Ribo Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Martijne Hc Duvekot; Esmee Venema; Hester F Lingsma; Jonathan M Coutinho; H Bart van der Worp; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Reinoud Ph Bokkers; Adriaan Cgm van Es; Aad van der Lugt; Henk Kerkhoff; Diederik Wj Dippel; Bob Roozenbeek Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Mehul D Patel; Jackie Thompson; José G Cabañas; Jefferson G Williams; Erin Lewis; Michael Bachman; Mahmoud Al Masry; Charles LaVigne; Leonardo Morantes; Tibor Becske; Omar Kass-Hout Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Stefanie Behnke; Thomas Schlechtriemen; Andreas Binder; Monika Bachhuber; Mark Becker; Benedikt Trauth; Martin Lesmeister; Elmar Spüntrup; Silke Walter; Lukas Hoor; Andreas Ragoschke-Schumm; Fatma Merzou; Luca Tarantini; Thomas Bertsch; Jürgen Guldner; Achim Magull-Seltenreich; Frank Maier; Christoph Massing; Volkmar Fischer; Michael Gawlitza; Katrin Donnevert; Hans-Michael Lamberty; Stefan Jung; Matthias Strittmatter; Silke Tonner; Johannes Schuler; Robert Liszka; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Iris Q Grunwald; Wolfgang Reith; Klaus Fassbender Journal: Neurol Res Pract Date: 2021-06-01