RESUMEN
Background: Undoubtedly, overlooking a stroke can result in severe disability or even death. However, identifying stroke patients in the prehospital setting poses a significant challenge. While the Face-Arm-Speech-Time (FAST) score is widely used, its effectiveness has been questioned because of its focus on symptoms primarily associated with anterior circulation strokes. In response to this limitation, we developed the innovative FAST4D score and conducted a comparative analysis of stroke detection rates between the novel FAST4D score and the FAST score. Methods: This prospective, multicenter proof-of-concept study aimed to assess stroke detection rates using both the FAST score and the new FAST4D score, which incorporates additional items such as the acute onset of diplopic images, deficit in the field of vision, dizziness/vertigo, and dysmetria/ataxia. Following their presentation to emergency medical services, all patients suspected of having a stroke and those diagnosed with a stroke upon discharge were included in this study. The diagnostic performance of the novel FAST4D score was evaluated and compared with that of the FAST score. Results: Between May 2019 and June 2021, a total of 1469 patients (749 female) were enrolled, with 1035 patients discharged with the diagnosis of stroke. Notably, 259 patients were identified solely through the FAST4D score. This resulted in a significantly higher rate of correctly identified as having had a stroke (stroke detection rate, sensitivity) with the new FAST4D score (93%) compared with the established FAST score (78%) (p < 0.001). This resulted in a reduction in false negative diagnoses by 65%. Conclusions: The novel FAST4D score demonstrated a 15-percentage increase in the stroke detection rate. This heightened detection rate holds the potential for more accurate patient allocation to stroke units, consequently reducing the time to revascularization.
RESUMEN
Brain injured patients often need deep sedation to prevent or treat increased intracranial pressure. The mainly used IV sedatives have side effects and/or high context-sensitive half-lives, limiting their use. Inhalative sedatives have comparatively minor side effects and a brief context-sensitive half-life. Despite the theoretical advantages, evidence in this patient group is lacking. A Germany-wide survey with 21 questions was conducted to find out how widespread the use of inhaled sedation is. An invitation for the survey was sent to 226 leaders of intensive care units (ICU) treating patients with brain injury as listed by the German Society for Neurointensive Care. Eighty-nine participants answered the questionnaire, but not all items were responded to, which resulted in different absolute counts. Most of them (88%) were university or high-level hospital ICU leaders and (67%) were leaders of specialized neuro-ICUs. Of these, 53/81 (65%) use inhalative sedation, and of the remaining 28, 17 reported interest in using this kind of sedation. Isoflurane is used by 43/53 (81%), sevoflurane by 15/53 (28%), and desflurane by 2. Hypotension and mydriasis are the most common reported side effects (25%). The presented survey showed that inhalative sedatives were used in a significant number of intensive care units in Germany to treat severely brain-injured patients.