Rethinking Prehospital Stroke Notification: Assessing Utility of Emergency Medical Services Impression and Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale

Cardio-Cerebral Infarction in a Patient with Deep Coma: A Diagnostic Challenge

The patient was a 69-year-old man who called an ambulance due to dyspnea. When emergency medical technicians found him, he had collapsed into deep coma in front of his house. On arrival, he remained in a deep coma with severe hypoxia. He underwent tracheal intubation. An electrocardiogram showed ST elevation. Chest roentgen showed bilateral butterfly shadow. Cardiac ultrasound revealed diffuse hypokinesis. Head computed tomography (CT) showed early cerebral ischemic signs that had been initially overlooked. Urgent transcutaneous coronary angiography showed obstruction of the right coronary artery that was treated successfully. However, the next day, he was still in coma and demonstrated anisocoria. Repeated head CT showed diffuse cerebral infarction. He died on the 5th day. We herein report a rare case of cardio-cerebral infarction with a fatal outcome. Patients with acute myocardial infarction and a coma state should be evaluated for cerebral perfusion or occlusion of major cerebral vessels by enhanced CT or an aortogram if percutaneous coronary intervention is performed.

An updated review and meta-analysis of screening tools for stroke in the emergency room and prehospital setting

BACKGROUND

Stroke screening tools should have good diagnostic performance for early diagnosis and a proper therapeutic plan. This paper describes and compares various diagnostic tools used to identify stroke in emergency departments and prehospital setting.

METHODS

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched until December 31, 2021, for studies published on stroke screening tools. These tools' diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) was pooled using a bivariate random-effects model whenever appropriate.

RESULTS

Eleven screening tools for stroke were identified in 29 different studies. The various tools had a wide range of sensitivity and specificity in different studies. In the meta-analysis, the Cincinnati Pre-hospital Stroke Scale, Face Arm Speech Test, and Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER) had sensitivity (between 83 and 91%) but poor specificity (all below 64%). When comparing all the tools, ROSIER had the highest sensitivity 90.5%. Los Angeles Pre-hospital Stroke Screen performed best in terms of specificity 88.7% but had low sensitivity (73.9%). Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Screen had a balanced performance in terms of sensitivity (86%) and specificity (76%). Sensitivity analysis consisting of only prospective studies showed a similar range of sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

All the stroke screening tools included in the review were comparable, but no clear superior screening tool could be identified. Simple screening tools like Cincinnati prehospital stroke scale (CPSS) have similar performance compared to more complex tools.

Prehospital Stroke Detection Devices: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Trends

BACKGROUND

Stroke represents the second highest disease burden worldwide. It is well documented that rapid stroke identification and treatment are associated with improved outcomes. In particular, prehospital stroke detection (PSD) devices have emerged as possible tools to facilitate more rapid and accurate stroke triage. Bibliometric analyses offer a powerful tool to characterize the entire field from an interdisciplinary perspective. This bibliometric analysis aims to analyze current themes and identify future trends within the PSD space.

METHODS

The Web of Science collection database was surveyed for PSD literature. Search terms focused on stroke diagnostic techniques, clinical indicators for ischemia/hemorrhage, and prehospital timing. Subsequently, VOSviewer was used for visual mapping analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 237 documents were identified between 1995 and 2021 from 1190 different authors. Publication volume has increased greatly in recent years. Publications were spread across 156 journals with the largest journal, Stroke, contributing just 7 studies over 26 years. Keywords analysis showed that stroke, near-infrared spectroscopy, and electroencephalography were the most common keywords.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel PSD devices are promising tools for the early detection and characterization of stroke. This study identifies recent increased attention to PSD technology, a trend that will likely continue in the coming years. Devices using near-infrared spectroscopy, ultrasonography, microwave, and electroencephalography represent the central areas of future PSD research. The multidisciplinary, and therefore fractured, nature of the PSD space requires those interested in the field to maintain active search habits across multiple journals to remain up to date on PSD innovations.

Appropriate Air Medical Services Utilization and Recommendations for Integration of Air Medical Services Resources into the EMS System of Care: A Joint Position Statement and Resource Document of NAEMSP, ACEP, and AMPA

Air medical services involves providing medical care in transit while using either fixed wing (airplane) or rotor wing (helicopter) aircraft to move patients between locations. The modern use and availability of air medical services has expanded access to various health system resources, including specialty care. While this is generally beneficial, such expansion has also contributed to the complexity of health care delivery systems.(1, 2) Since the publication of the 2013 joint position statement Appropriate and Safe Utilization of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services,(3) research has shown that patient benefit is gained from the clinical care capabilities of air medical services independent of potential time saved when transporting patients.(4-6) Because the evidence basis for utilization of air medical services continues to evolve, NAEMSP, ACEP, and AMPA believe that an update regarding the appropriate utilization of air medical services is warranted, and that such guidance for utilization can be divided into three major categories: clinical considerations, safety considerations, and system integration and quality assurance considerations.

Improving Prehospital Stroke Diagnosis Using Natural Language Processing of Paramedic Reports

[Figure: see text].

Different Stroke Scales; Which Scale or Scales Should Be Used?

BACKGROUND

There has been a considerable development in the clinometric of stroke. But researchers are concerned that some scales are too generic, inherently and the insight may not be provided. The current study was conducted to determine which scale or scales should be used in stroke survivors.

METHODS

We selected 67 studies which were published between January 2010 and December 2018 from Up to date, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Medline, Elsevier and Web of Science with MeSH terms. Inclusion criteria were: clinical trials, prospective studies, retrospective cohort studies, or cross-sectional studies; original research in adult human stroke survivors. We excluded the following articles: non-adult population; highly selected studies or treatment studies without incidence data; commentaries, single case reports, review article, editorials and non-English articles or articles without full text available.

RESULTS

Face Arm Speech Test and Cincinnati Pre-Hospital Stroke Scale scales because it was easy to learn and rapidly administer the recommended dose to use in pre-hospital, but there are not gold standard in stroke diagnosis in Pre-Hospital. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale valuable in the acute stage for middle cerebral artery, not chronic or long term post stroke outcome. The Barthel Index scores for approximately three weeks could predict activities of daily living disabilities in 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Every scale has an advantage and a disadvantage and we were not able to introduce the gold standard for each item, but some special scales were used more in the studies, preferred for comparing with other studies to match the research results.

Stroke Recognition for First Aid Providers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim

To perform a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of existing stroke recognition scales used in a prehospital setting and suitable for use by first aid providers. The systematic review will be used to inform an update of international first aid guidelines.

Methods

We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and report results according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase and CENTRAL on May 25, 2020 for studies of stroke recognition scales used by first aid providers, paramedics and nurses for adults with suspected acute stroke in a prehospital setting. Outcomes included change in time to treatment, initial recognition of stroke, survival and discharge with favorable neurologic status, and increased layperson recognition of the signs of stroke. Two investigators reviewed abstracts, extracted and assessed the data for risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology.

Results

We included 24 observational studies with 10,446 patients evaluating 10 stroke scales (SS). All evidence was of moderate to very low certainty. Use of the Kurashiki Prehospital SS (KPSS), Ontario Prehospital SS (OPSS) and Face Arm Speech Time SS (FAST) was associated with an increased number of suspected stroke patients arriving to a hospital within three hours and, for OPSS, a higher rate of thrombolytic therapy. The KPSS was associated with a decreased time from symptom onset to hospital arrival. Use of FAST Emergency Response (FASTER) was associated with decreased time from door to tomography and from symptom onset to treatment. The Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Scale (LAPSS) was associated with an increased number of correct initial diagnoses. Meta-analysis found the summary estimate sensitivity of four scales ranged from 0.78 to 0.86. The FAST and Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) were found to have a summary estimated sensitivity of 0.86, 95% CI [0.69-0.94] and 0.81, 95% CI [0.70-0.89], respectively.

Conclusion

Stroke recognition scales used in the prehospital first aid setting improves the recognition and diagnosis of stroke, thereby aiding the emergency services to triage stroke victims directly down an appropriate stroke care pathway. Of those prehospital scales evaluated by more than a single study, FAST and Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Screen (MASS) were found to be the most sensitive for stroke recognition, while the CPSS had higher specificity. When blood glucose cannot be measured, the simplicity of FAST and CPSS makes these particular stroke scales appropriate for non-medical first aid providers.

2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations

This is the summary publication of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's 2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published evidence reviewed by the First Aid Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the topics of first aid methods of glucose administration for hypoglycemia; techniques for cooling of exertional hyperthermia and heatstroke; recognition of acute stroke; the use of supplementary oxygen in acute stroke; early or first aid use of aspirin for chest pain; control of life- threatening bleeding through the use of tourniquets, haemostatic dressings, direct pressure, or pressure devices; the use of a compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries; and temporary storage of an avulsed tooth. Additional summaries of scoping reviews are presented for the use of a recovery position, recognition of a concussion, and 6 other first aid topics. The First Aid Task Force has assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of evidence on the basis of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and present their consensus treatment recommendations with evidence-to-decision highlights and identified priority knowledge gaps for future research. The 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) is the fourth in a series of annual summary publications from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This 2020 CoSTR for first aid includes new topics addressed by systematic reviews performed within the past 12 months. It also includes updates of the first aid treatment recommendations published from 2010 through 2019 that are based on additional evidence evaluations and updates. As a result, this 2020 CoSTR for first aid represents the most comprehensive update since 2010.

2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations

This is the summary publication of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's 2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published evidence reviewed by the First Aid Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the topics of first aid methods of glucose administration for hypoglycemia; techniques for cooling of exertional hyperthermia and heatstroke; recognition of acute stroke; the use of supplementary oxygen in acute stroke; early or first aid use of aspirin for chest pain; control of life-threatening bleeding through the use of tourniquets, hemostatic dressings, direct pressure, or pressure devices; the use of a compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries; and temporary storage of an avulsed tooth. Additional summaries of scoping reviews are presented for the use of a recovery position, recognition of a concussion, and 6 other first aid topics. The First Aid Task Force has assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of evidence on the basis of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and present their consensus treatment recommendations with evidence-to-decision highlights and identified priority knowledge gaps for future research.

The role of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale in the emergency department: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Stroke is one of the leading causes of morbidity, disability, and mortality in high-income countries. Early prehospital stroke recognition plays a fundamental role, because most clinical decisions should be made within the first hours after onset of symptoms. The Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) is a validated screening tool whose utilization is suggested during triage. The aim of this study is to review the role of the CPSS by assessing its sensitivity and specificity in prehospital and hospital settings.

Methods

A systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature reporting the CPSS sensitivity and specificity among patients suspected of stroke were undertaken. Electronic databases were searched up to December 2018, and the quality assessment was carried out by using the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies −2  (QUADAS-2).

Results

Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results showed an overall sensitivity of 82.46% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.83–88.09%) and specificity of 56.95% (95% CI 41.78–70.92). No significant differences were found in terms of sensitivity when CPSS was performed by physicians (80.11%, 95% CI 66.14–89.25%) or non-physicians (81.11%, 95% CI 69.78–88.87%). However, administration by physicians resulted in higher specificity (73.57%, 95% CI 65.78–80.12%) when compared to administration by non-physicians (50.07%, 95% CI 31.54–68.58%). Prospective studies showed higher specificity 71.61% (95% CI 61.12–80.18%) and sensitivity 86.82% (95% CI 74.72–93.63) when compared to retrospective studies which showed specificity of 33.37% (95% CI 22.79–45.94%) and sensitivity of 78.52% (95% CI 75.08–81.60).

Conclusions

The CPSS is a standardized and easy-to-use stroke screening tool whose implementation in emergency systems protocols, along with proper and consistent coordination with local, regional, and state agencies, medical authorities and local experts are suggested.

Prehospital stroke scales as screening tools for early identification of stroke and transient ischemic attack

BACKGROUND

Rapid and accurate detection of stroke by paramedics or other emergency clinicians at the time of first contact is crucial for timely initiation of appropriate treatment. Several stroke recognition scales have been developed to support the initial triage. However, their accuracy remains uncertain and there is no agreement which of the scales perform better.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify and review the evidence pertaining to the test accuracy of validated stroke recognition scales, as used in a prehospital or emergency room (ER) setting to screen people suspected of having stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Science Citation Index to 30 January 2018. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies evaluating the accuracy of stroke recognition scales used in a prehospital or ER setting to identify stroke and transient Ischemic attack (TIA) in people suspected of stroke. The scales had to be applied to actual people and the results compared to a final diagnosis of stroke or TIA. We excluded studies that applied scales to patient records; enrolled only screen-positive participants and without complete 2 × 2 data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted a two-stage screening of all publications identified by the searches, extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies using a tailored version of QUADAS-2. A third review author acted as an arbiter. We recalculated study-level sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and presented them in forest plots and in the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) space. When a sufficient number of studies reported the accuracy of the test in the same setting (prehospital or ER) and the level of heterogeneity was relatively low, we pooled the results using the bivariate random-effects model. We plotted the results in the summary ROC (SROC) space presenting an estimate point (mean sensitivity and specificity) with 95% CI and prediction regions. Because of the small number of studies, we did not conduct meta-regression to investigate between-study heterogeneity and the relative accuracy of the scales. Instead, we summarized the results in tables and diagrams, and presented our findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We selected 23 studies for inclusion (22 journal articles and one conference abstract). We evaluated the following scales: Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS; 11 studies), Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER; eight studies), Face Arm Speech Time (FAST; five studies), Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Scale (LAPSS; five studies), Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Scale (MASS; three studies), Ontario Prehospital Stroke Screening Tool (OPSST; one study), Medic Prehospital Assessment for Code Stroke (MedPACS; one study) and PreHospital Ambulance Stroke Test (PreHAST; one study). Nine studies compared the accuracy of two or more scales. We considered 12 studies at high risk of bias and one with applicability concerns in the patient selection domain; 14 at unclear risk of bias and one with applicability concerns in the reference standard domain; and the risk of bias in the flow and timing domain was high in one study and unclear in another 16.We pooled the results from five studies evaluating ROSIER in the ER and five studies evaluating LAPSS in a prehospital setting. The studies included in the meta-analysis of ROSIER were of relatively good methodologic quality and produced a summary sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.91), with the prediction interval ranging from approximately 0.75 to 0.95. This means that the test will miss on average 12% of people with stroke/TIA which, depending on the circumstances, could range from 5% to 25%. We could not obtain a reliable summary estimate of specificity due to extreme heterogeneity in study-level results. The summary sensitivity of LAPSS was 0.83 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.89) and summary specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.96). However, we were uncertain in the validity of these results as four of the studies were at high and one at uncertain risk of bias. We did not report summary estimates for the rest of the scales, as the number of studies per test per setting was small, the risk of bias was high or uncertain, the results were highly heterogenous, or a combination of these.Studies comparing two or more scales in the same participants reported that ROSIER and FAST had similar accuracy when used in the ER. In the field, CPSS was more sensitive than MedPACS and LAPSS, but had similar sensitivity to that of MASS; and MASS was more sensitive than LAPSS. In contrast, MASS, ROSIER and MedPACS were more specific than CPSS; and the difference in the specificities of MASS and LAPSS was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the field, CPSS had consistently the highest sensitivity and, therefore, should be preferred to other scales. Further evidence is needed to determine its absolute accuracy and whether alternatives scales, such as MASS and ROSIER, which might have comparable sensitivity but higher specificity, should be used instead, to achieve better overall accuracy. In the ER, ROSIER should be the test of choice, as it was evaluated in more studies than FAST and showed consistently high sensitivity. In a cohort of 100 people of whom 62 have stroke/TIA, the test will miss on average seven people with stroke/TIA (ranging from three to 16). We were unable to obtain an estimate of its summary specificity. Because of the small number of studies per test per setting, high risk of bias, substantial differences in study characteristics and large between-study heterogeneity, these findings should be treated as provisional hypotheses that need further verification in better-designed studies.