Acute stroke treatment has advanced substantially over the last years. Important milestones constitute intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular therapy (EVT), and treatment of stroke patients in ...dedicated units (stroke units). At present in Switzerland there are 13 certified stroke units and 10 certified EVT-capable stroke centers. Emerging challenges for the prehospital pathways are that (i) acute stroke treatment remains very time sensitive, (ii) the time window for acute stroke treatment has opened up to 24 h in selected cases, and (iii) EVT is only available in stroke centers. The goal of the current guideline is to standardize the prehospital phase of patients with acute stroke for them to receive the optimal treatment without unnecessary delays. Different prehospital models exist. For patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO), the Drip and Ship model is the most commonly used in Switzerland. This model is challenged by the Mothership model where stroke patients with suspected LVO are directly transferred to the stroke center. This latter model is only effective if there is an accurate triage by paramedics, hence the patient may benefit from the right treatment in the right place, without loss of time. Although the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale is a well-established scale to detect acute stroke in the prehospital setting, it neglects nonmotor symptoms like visual impairment or severe vertigo. Therefore we suggest “acute occurrence of a focal neurological deficit” as the trigger to enter the acute stroke pathway. For the triage whether a patient has a LVO (yes/no), there are a number of scores published. Accuracy of these scores is borderline. Nevertheless, applying the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation score or a comparable score to recognize patients with LVO may help to speed up and triage prehospital pathways. Ultimately, the decision of which model to use in which stroke network will depend on local (e.g. geographical) characteristics.
Although accurate diagnosis of deficit of mild intensity is critical, various methods are used to assess, dichotomize and integrate performance, with no validated gold standard. This study described ...and validated a framework for the analysis of cognitive performance.
This study was performed by using the Groupe de Réflexion sur L'Evaluation des Fonctions EXécutives (GREFEX) database (724 controls and 461 patients) examined by 7 tests assessing executive functions. The first phase determined the criteria for the cutoff scores, the second phase, the effect of test number on diagnostic accuracy and the third phase, the best methods for combining test scores into an overall summary score. Four validation criteria were used: determination of impaired performance as compared to expected one, false-positive rate ≤5%, detection of both single and multiple impairments with optimal sensitivity.
The procedure based on 5th percentile cutoffs determined from standardized residuals was the most appropriate procedure. Although area under the curve (AUC) increased with the number of scores (p = .0001), the false-positive rate also increased (p = .0001), resulting in suboptimal sensitivity for detecting selective impairment. Two overall summary scores, the average of the seven process scores and the Item Response Theory (IRT) score, had significantly (p = .0001) higher AUCs, even for patients with a selective impairment, and provided higher resulting prevalence of dysexecutive disorders (p = .0001).
The present study provides and validates a generative framework for the interpretation of cognitive data. Two overall summary score met all 4 validation criteria. A practical consequence is the need to profoundly modify the analysis and interpretation of cognitive assessments for both routine use and clinical research.
PDF
