Background Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and tau are promising markers for differentiating acute cerebral ischemia (ACI) and hemorrhagic stroke (HS), but their prehospital dynamics and usefulness are unknown. Methods We performed ultra-sensitivite single-molecule array (Simoa®) measurements of plasma GFAP and total tau in a stroke code patient cohort with cardinal stroke symptoms [National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥3]. Sequential sampling included 2 ultra-early samples, and a follow-up sample on the next morning. Results We included 272 cases (203 ACI, 60 HS, and 9 stroke mimics). Median (IQR) last-known-well to sampling time was 53 (35–90) minutes for initial prehospital samples, 90 (67–130) minutes for secondary acute samples, and 21 (16–24) hours for next morning samples. Plasma GFAP was significantly higher in patients with HS than ACI (P < 0.001 for <1 hour and <3 hour prehospital samples, and <3 hour secondary samples), while total tau showed no intergroup difference. The prehospital GFAP release rate (pg/mL/minute) occurring between the 2 very early samples was significantly higher in patients with HS than ACI [2.4 (0.6–14.1)] versus 0.3 (−0.3–0.9) pg/mL/minute, P < 0.001. For cases with <3 hour prehospital sampling (ACI n = 178, HS n = 59), a combined rule (prehospital GFAP >410 pg/mL, or prehospital GFAP 90–410 pg/mL together with GFAP release >0.6 pg/mL/minute) enabled ruling out HS with high certainty (NPV 98.4%) in 68% of patients with ACI (sensitivity for HS 96.6%, specificity 68%, PPV 50%). Conclusions In comparison to single-point measurement, monitoring the prehospital GFAP release rate improves ultra-early differentiation of stroke subtypes. With serial measurement GFAP has potential to improve future prehospital stroke diagnostics .
Background: Accurate identification of acute stroke by Emergency Medical Dispatchers (EMD) is essential for timely and purposeful deployment of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and a prerequisite for operating mobile stroke units. However, precision of EMD stroke recognition is currently modest. Aims: We sought to identify targets for improving dispatcher stroke identification. Methods: Dispatch codes and EMS patient records were cross-linked to investigate factors associated with an incorrect dispatch code in a prospective observational cohort of 625 patients with a final diagnosis of acute stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), transported to our stroke center as candidates for recanalization therapies. Call recordings were analyzed in a subgroup that received an incorrect low-priority dispatch code indicating a fall or unknown acute illness (n ¼ 46). Results: Out of 625 acute stroke/TIA patients, 450 received a high-priority stroke dispatch code (sensitivity 72.0%; 95% CI, 68.5-75.5). Independent predictors of dispatcher missed acute stroke included a bystander caller (aOR, 3.72; 1.48-9.34), confusion (aOR, 2.62; 1.59-4.31), fall at onset (aOR, 1.86; 1.24-2.78), and older age (aOR [per year], 1.02; 1.01-1.04). Of the analyzed call recordings, 71.7% revealed targets for improvement, including failure to recognize a Face Arm Speech Time (FAST) test symptom (21/46 cases, 18 with speech disturbance), or failure to thoroughly evaluate symptoms (12/46 cases). Conclusions: Based on our findings, efforts to improve dispatcher stroke identification should primarily focus on improving recognition of acute speech disturbance, and implementing screening of FAST-symptoms in emergency phone calls revealing a fall or confusion.
Our findings support the safety of highly optimized door-to-needle times, built on thorough training in a large-volume, centralized stroke service with long-standing experience. Augmented imaging and front-loaded specialist engagement are warranted to further improve rapid stroke diagnostics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.