Accuracy and Implications of Hemorrhagic Stroke Recognition by Emergency Medical Services.

Background Hemorrhagic stroke is a medical emergency that requires rapid identification and treatment. Despite playing a critical role in the emergency response to hemorrhagic stroke patients, a minimal amount is known about the quality of emergency medical services (EMS) care for this condition. The objectives of this study were to quantify EMS hemorrhagic stroke recognition, identify predictors of accurate EMS recognition, and examine associations between EMS recognition, quality of prehospital care, and patient outcomes. Methods: Consecutive EMS-transported hemorrhagic strokes were identified from medical records at 4 primary stroke centers. Data regarding prehospital care were abstracted from EMS records and linked to in-hospital data. Clinical predictors of accurate EMS recognition were examined using logistic regression. EMS performance measure compliance and hospital outcomes were also compared among EMS recognized and unrecognized hemorrhagic strokes. Results: Over 24 months, EMS-transported 188 hemorrhagic stroke patients; 108 (57.4%) were recognized by EMS. Recognized cases had higher rates of stroke scale documentation (84.3% vs. 20.0%, p < 0.001); multivariable logistic regression confirmed a strong independent relationship between stroke scale documentation and recognition (adjusted OR 15.1 [5.6 to 40.7]). Recognized cases also had shorter on-scene times (15.5 vs. 21 min, p < 0.001) and door-to-computed tomography (DTCT) acquisition times (20 vs. 47 min, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Among EMS-transported hemorrhagic stroke cases, stroke screen documentation was strongly associated with EMS stroke recognition, which was in turn associated with higher quality of EMS care and faster computed tomography (CT) scans upon emergency department arrival.

Validation of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of Stroke is one of the key concepts in the "Chain of Survival" as described by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke guidelines. The most commonly used tools for prehospital assessment of stroke are "The Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale," (CPSS) the "Face, Arm, Speech Test," and "The Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Screen." The former two are used to identify stroke using physical findings while the latter is used to rule out other causes of altered consciousness. AIM: The aim of this study is to validate the CPSS in the prehospital setting by correlating with computed tomography scan findings. (1) To determine if these scores can be implemented in the Indian prehospital setting. (2) To determine if it is feasible for new emergency departments (EDs) to use these protocols for early detection of stroke. METHODOLOGY: A prospective, observational study from December, 2015 to March, 2016. Patients with suspected stroke were enrolled. Data were collected prehospital in patients that arrived to the ED in an ambulance. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the score were calculated using standard formulae. RESULTS: CPSS showed good sensitivity of 81% (confidence interval [CI] - 68.5%-97%) when combined and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% (CI: 91.9%-100%). Individually, they showed a sensitivity of 75.8%, 79%, and 74.1%, respectively, with a PPV of 100% and specificity of 95%-100%. CONCLUSION: As a prehospital screening tool, CPSS can be extremely useful as any diagnosis is only provisional until confirmed by an appropriate investigation in a hospital.

Conocimiento de escalas de evaluación inicial de accidente cerebrovascular por médicos de guardia en tres provincias argentinas / Awareness of initial stoke evaluation scales among emergency room physicians in three argentinian provinces

Introducción: las enfermedades cardiovasculares constituyeron en 2004 la causa más frecuente de muerte en Argentina,duplicando a las neoplasias malignas en su conjunto. El accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) representó el7,5% del total de muertes. La Asociación Americana del Corazón propone el empleo de la escala prehospitalaria delaccidente cerebrovascular de Cincinnati (CPSS) y la escala de evaluación prehospitalaria del ACV de Los Ángeles(LAPSS) para evaluar sujetos con posible ACV.Objetivos: evaluar el conocimiento de estas escalas por médicos de guardia, y su opinión respecto al valor que ellaspodrían tener sobre su práctica.Material y método: estudio prospectivo y observacional encuestando 569 médicos durante diciembre de 2008 amarzo 2009 en distintas ciudades de las provincias de Santa Fe, Entre Ríos y Chaco, Argentina.Resultados: un 32,3% manifestó conocer las escalas, pero solamente 8,4% de ellos pudo enumerar los puntos deCPSS, un 1,9% pudo hacerlo con LAPSS y el 0,7% ambas. Quienes recordaban una o ambas escalas manifestaronsentirse más seguros al evaluar un posible ACV (p= 0,02); ninguno de los que recordaban LAPSS manifestó sentirseinseguro. Quienes se sentían menos seguros fueron los que atribuyeron más beneficios a las escalas (p= 0,0003).Los no especialistas las consideraron más útiles (p= 0,005). El 89% refirió que las escalas beneficiarían su práctica.Conclusiones: ambas escalas fueron consideradas de valor por médicos de guardia para evaluar pacientes con posibleACV. Enfatizamos la necesidad de una mayor difusión de ellas a fin de mejorar el abordaje inicial de estos pacientes.

Introduction: In 2004, the most frequent cause of death in Argentina was cardiovascular disease, which almost duplicated all types of malignant neoplasm. Cerebrovascular disease caused 7.5% of total deaths. The American Heart Association proposes the use of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) and Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Screen (LAPSS) toevaluate patients with possible cerebrovascular disease. Objective: To evaluate the awareness of these scales knowledge among doctors working in emergency rooms and prehospitalconsultation, and what are their opinions about the usefulness of the scales.Material and method: Observational and prospective survey of 569 doctors from the Argentinian provinces of Santa Fe,Entre Rios, and Chaco from December 2008 to March 2009. Results: One third (32.3%) of doctors included in the mentioned survey declared to know the scales, although only 8.4% of them could enumerate CPSS points, 1.9% could enumerate LAPSS points and 0.7% remembered both CPSS andLAPSS points. Those who remembered either one or both scales felt safer evaluating a possible stroke (p= 0.02) while and no doctor who remembered LAPSS felt doubtful. Those who felt more hesitant where the doctors who adscribed more benefits to the scales (p= 0.0003). Non specialists considered scales more useful (p= 0.005). Overall, 89% of doctors admitted scales would benefit their practice. Conclusion: Both scales were highly valued by doctors on call in order to diagnose patients with possible stroke. We stress the need of a bigger widespread coverage of these scales in order to improve the initial approach for managing these patients.

Conocimiento de escalas de evaluación inicial de accidente cerebrovascular por médicos de guardia en tres provincias argentinas / Awareness of initial stoke evaluation scales among emergency room physicians in three argentinian provinces

Introducción: las enfermedades cardiovasculares constituyeron en 2004 la causa más frecuente de muerte en Argentina,duplicando a las neoplasias malignas en su conjunto. El accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) representó el7,5% del total de muertes. La Asociación Americana del Corazón propone el empleo de la escala prehospitalaria delaccidente cerebrovascular de Cincinnati (CPSS) y la escala de evaluación prehospitalaria del ACV de Los Angeles(LAPSS) para evaluar sujetos con posible ACV.Objetivos: evaluar el conocimiento de estas escalas por médicos de guardia, y su opinión respecto al valor que ellaspodrían tener sobre su práctica.Material y método: estudio prospectivo y observacional encuestando 569 médicos durante diciembre de 2008 amarzo 2009 en distintas ciudades de las provincias de Santa Fe, Entre Ríos y Chaco, Argentina.Resultados: un 32,3% manifestó conocer las escalas, pero solamente 8,4% de ellos pudo enumerar los puntos deCPSS, un 1,9% pudo hacerlo con LAPSS y el 0,7% ambas. Quienes recordaban una o ambas escalas manifestaronsentirse más seguros al evaluar un posible ACV (p= 0,02); ninguno de los que recordaban LAPSS manifestó sentirseinseguro. Quienes se sentían menos seguros fueron los que atribuyeron más beneficios a las escalas (p= 0,0003).Los no especialistas las consideraron más útiles (p= 0,005). El 89% refirió que las escalas beneficiarían su práctica.Conclusiones: ambas escalas fueron consideradas de valor por médicos de guardia para evaluar pacientes con posibleACV. Enfatizamos la necesidad de una mayor difusión de ellas a fin de mejorar el abordaje inicial de estos pacientes.(AU)

Introduction: In 2004, the most frequent cause of death in Argentina was cardiovascular disease, which almost duplicated all types of malignant neoplasm. Cerebrovascular disease caused 7.5% of total deaths. The American Heart Association proposes the use of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) and Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Screen (LAPSS) toevaluate patients with possible cerebrovascular disease. Objective: To evaluate the awareness of these scales knowledge among doctors working in emergency rooms and prehospitalconsultation, and what are their opinions about the usefulness of the scales.Material and method: Observational and prospective survey of 569 doctors from the Argentinian provinces of Santa Fe,Entre Rios, and Chaco from December 2008 to March 2009. Results: One third (32.3%) of doctors included in the mentioned survey declared to know the scales, although only 8.4% of them could enumerate CPSS points, 1.9% could enumerate LAPSS points and 0.7% remembered both CPSS andLAPSS points. Those who remembered either one or both scales felt safer evaluating a possible stroke (p= 0.02) while and no doctor who remembered LAPSS felt doubtful. Those who felt more hesitant where the doctors who adscribed more benefits to the scales (p= 0.0003). Non specialists considered scales more useful (p= 0.005). Overall, 89% of doctors admitted scales would benefit their practice. Conclusion: Both scales were highly valued by doctors on call in order to diagnose patients with possible stroke. We stress the need of a bigger widespread coverage of these scales in order to improve the initial approach for managing these patients.(AU)