Numerical Cincinnati Stroke Scale versus Stroke Severity Screening Tools for the Prehospital Determination of LVO - Wagstaff, Holden M.; Crowe, Remle P.; Youngquist, Scott T.; Stoecklein, H. Hill; Treichel, Ali; He, Yao; Majersik, Jennifer J. (medRxiv, 2024)
Background Previous research demonstrated that the numerical Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) identifies large vessel occlusion (LVO) at similar rates compared to a limited number of stroke severity screening tools. We aimed to compare numerical CPSS to additional stroke scales using a national EMS database.Methods Using the ESO Data Collaborative, the largest EMS database with hospital linked data, we retrospectively analyzed prehospital patient records for the year 2022. Stroke and LVO diagnoses were determined by ICD-10 codes from linked hospital discharge and emergency department records. Prehospital CPSS was compared to the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool (C-STAT), the Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED), and the Balance Eyes Face Arm Speech Time (BE-FAST). The optimal prediction cut-points for LVO screening were determined by intersecting the sensitivity and specificity curves for each scale. To compare the discriminative abilities of each scale among those diagnosed with LVO, we used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC).Results We identified 17,442 prehospital records from 754 EMS agencies with >= 1 documented stroke scale of interest: 30.3% (n=5,278) had a hospital diagnosis of stroke, of which 71.6% (n=3,781) were ischemic; of those, 21.6% (n=817) were diagnosed with LVO. CPSS score >= 2 was found to be predictive of LVO with 76.9% sensitivity, 68.0% specificity, and AUROC 0.787 (95% CI 0.722-0.801). All other tools had similar predictive abilities, with sensitivity / specificity / AUROC of: C-STAT 62.5% / 76.5% / 0.727 (0.555-0.899); FAST-ED 61.4% / 76.1%/ 0.780 (0.725-0.836); BE-FAST 70.4% / 67.1% / 0.739 (0.697-0.788).Conclusion The less complex CPSS exhibited comparable performance to three frequently employed LVO detection tools. EMS agency leadership, medical directors, stroke system directors, and other stroke leaders may consider the complexity of stroke severity instruments and challenges with ensuring accurate recall and consistent application when selecting which instrument to implement. Use of the simpler CPSS may enhance compliance with the utilization of LVO screening instruments while maintaining the accuracy of prehospital LVO determination.Competing Interest StatementAli Treichel and Dr. Remle Crowe work for ESO which is an electronic patient care record software which publishes at no cost, the database used for this manuscript. Dr. Majersik reports others grants from the NIH. Additionally, Dr. Majersik reports personal fees from the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Associate Editor outside the submitted work. Dr. Youngquist reports consulting fees from Colabs Medical and grant funding from the ZOLL Foundation, the US Department of Defense, NINDS 1U01NS099046-01A1 and 7U01NS114042-03, and NHLBI UH3HL145269. The other author report no conflicts.Funding StatementThe primary author was supported by a StrokeNet education grant during the majority of this work: U10NS086606 NIH/NINDS UT StrokeNet Funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The IRB at the University of Utah approved of this study and deemed it exempt from human subjects review.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.