4.2 Article

e-NIHSS: an Expanded National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Weighted for Anterior and Posterior Circulation Strokes

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 25, Issue 12, Pages 2953-2957

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.08.011

Keywords

Stroke management; stroke scale; stroke care; posterior circulation infarct (POCI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is the most widespread clinical scale used in patients presenting with acute stroke. The merits of the NIHSS include simplicity, quickness, and agreement between clinicians. The clinical evaluation on posterior circulation stroke remains still a limit of NIHSS. Methods: We assessed the application of a new version of NIHSS, the e-NIHSS (expanded NIHSS), adding specific elements in existing items to explore signs/symptoms of a posterior circulation stroke. A total of 22 consecutive patients with suspected vertebrobasilar stroke were compared with 25 patients with anterior circulation stroke using NIHSS and e-NIHSS. Results: We compared the NIHSS and e-NIHSS scores obtained by the 2 examiners, in patients with posterior circulation infarct (POCI), using the Wilcoxon test. Patients with POCI evaluated with e-NIHSS had an average of 2 points higher than patients evaluated with classical NIHSS. The difference was statistically significant (P < .05), weighted by the new expanded items. Conclusions: The NIHSS is a practical scale model, with high reproducibility between trained, different examiners, focused on posterior circulation strokes, with the same total score and number of items of the existing NIHSS. The e-NHISS could improve the sensitivity of NIHSS in posterior circulation stroke and could have an impact on clinical trials, as well as on outcomes. Further studies are needed to investigate a larger number of patients and the correlation between the e-NIHSS score and neuroimaging findings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available