4.6 Review

Clinical diagnostic tools for screening of perioperative stroke in general surgery: a systematic review

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 116, Issue 3, Pages 328-338

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev452

Keywords

diagnosis: screening; diagnostic tests; perioperative period; stroke

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinese Medical Association [12060840384]
  2. Special Funding Grant for Clinical Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Perioperative stroke is a devastating complication that carries high mortality and functional disability. Unfortunately, residual anaesthesia and analgesia may obscure important warning signs and may lead to a delay in the assessment and treatment of major stroke after surgery. The purpose of this review is to examine the utility of existing stroke scales, for the recognition of perioperative stroke in the general surgical population. A total of 21 stroke scales have been described in the literature. Diagnostic performance was reported in 17 scales. The majority of the stroke scales were designed to evaluate current neurological deficits after an established stroke event. Recent abbreviated stroke test, such as the Face, Arm, Speech Test (FAST), were developed to facilitate stroke identification in the emergency department. Only two stroke scales have been applied in the perioperative setting after cardiac, carotid and neurological surgeries. The modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale appears to be useful in detecting new subtle neurological deficits in critical care, or high dependency units after surgery. However, in the general postsurgical wards, given the concern about the workload required, abbreviated stroke tests may be more appropriate for routine regular stroke surveillance. It is hoped that these tests will provide rapid assessment of global neurological function to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment of perioperative stroke.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available