Non-coding RNAs versus protein biomarkers to diagnose and differentiate acute stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Stroke diagnosis is dependent on lengthy clinical and neuroimaging assessments, while rapid treatment initiation improves clinical outcome. Currently, more sensitive biomarker assays of both non-coding RNA- and protein biomarkers have improved their detectability, which could accelerate stroke diagnosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares non-coding RNA- with protein biomarkers for their potential to diagnose and differentiate acute stroke (subtypes) in (pre-)hospital settings. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic performance of non-coding RNA- and protein biomarkers to differentiate acute ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, stroke mimics, and (healthy) controls. Quality appraisal of individual studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool while the meta-analysis was performed with the sROC approach and by assessing pooled sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratios, positive- and negative likelihood ratios, and the Youden Index. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: 112 studies were included in the systematic review and 42 studies in the meta-analysis containing 11627 patients with ischemic strokes, 2110 patients with hemorrhagic strokes, 1393 patients with a stroke mimic, and 5548 healthy controls. Proteins (IL-6 and S100 calcium-binding protein B (S100B)) and microRNAs (miR-30a) have similar performance in ischemic stroke diagnosis. To differentiate between ischemic- or hemorrhagic strokes, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels and autoantibodies to the NR2 peptide (NR2aAb, a cleavage product of NMDA neuroreceptors) were best performing whereas no investigated protein or non-coding RNA biomarkers differentiated stroke from stroke mimics with high diagnostic potential. CONCLUSIONS: Despite sampling time differences, circulating microRNAs (< 24 h) and proteins (< 4,5 h) perform equally well in ischemic stroke diagnosis. GFAP differentiates stroke subtypes, while a biomarker panel of GFAP and UCH-L1 improved the sensitivity and specificity of UCH-L1 alone to differentiate stroke.

Prehospital Stroke Triage: A Modeling Study on the Impact of Triage Tools in Different Regions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Direct transportation to a thrombectomy-capable intervention center is beneficial for patients with ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), but can delay intravenous thrombolytics (IVT). The aim of this modeling study was to estimate the effect of prehospital triage strategies on treatment delays and overtriage in different regions. METHODS: We used data from two prospective cohort studies in the Netherlands: the Leiden Prehospital Stroke Study and the PRESTO study. We included stroke code patients within 6 h from symptom onset. We modeled outcomes of Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE) scale triage and triage with a personalized decision tool, using drip-and-ship as reference. Main outcomes were overtriage (stroke code patients incorrectly triaged to an intervention center), reduced delay to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), and delay to IVT. RESULTS: We included 1798 stroke code patients from four ambulance regions. Per region, overtriage ranged from 1-13% (RACE triage) and 3-15% (personalized tool). Reduction of delay to EVT varied by region between 24 ± 5 min (n = 6) to 78 ± 3 (n = 2), while IVT delay increased with 5 (n = 5) to 15 min (n = 21) for non-LVO patients. The personalized tool reduced delay to EVT for more patients (25 ± 4 min [n = 8] to 49 ± 13 [n = 5]), while delaying IVT with 3-14 min (8-24 patients). In region C, most EVT patients were treated faster (reduction of delay to EVT 31 ± 6 min (n = 35), with RACE triage and the personalized tool. CONCLUSIONS: In this modeling study, we showed that prehospital triage reduced time to EVT without disproportionate IVT delay, compared to a drip-and-ship strategy. The effect of triage strategies and the associated overtriage varied between regions. Implementation of prehospital triage should therefore be considered on a regional level.