4.7 Article

A simple 3-item stroke scale - Comparison with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and prediction of middle cerebral artery occlusion

Journal

STROKE
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 773-776

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000157591.61322.df

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; stroke assessment; stroke, acute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose - The purpose of the study was to design a simple stroke scale that requires minimal training but reflects initial stroke severity and is predictive of middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusion. Methods - The new stroke scale assessed 3 parameters: ( 1) level of consciousness, ( 2) gaze, and ( 3) motor function. Each item was graded 0 to 2, where 0 indicated normal findings and 2 severe abnormalities (ie, profound drowsiness or worse, forced gaze deviation, and severe hemiparesis, respectively). During a study period of 11 months, patients presenting with acute stroke symptoms ( onset <= 6 hours) were examined by a stroke neurologist assessing the new scale as well as the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). In addition, 83 patients received acute magnetic resonance angiography (MRA; as part of an acute stroke protocol). Results - The new stroke scale was strongly associated with the NIHSS. Interobserver reliability of the new scale was high (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.947). Using post hoc analysis, a score of >= 4 predicted proximal vessel occlusion (T-segment or M1-segment occlusion of the MCA on MRA) almost as accurately ( overall accuracy 0.86) as an NIHSS score of >= 14 ( overall accuracy 0.93). Conclusions - The new stroke scale reflects acute stroke severity well and predicts proximal MCA occlusion with reasonable accuracy. However, the clinical scale needs further evaluation before it can be recommended as a tool for the triage of acute stroke patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available