1513

Among patients with acute ischemic stroke (IS), transport by emergency medical services (EMS) has been associ-

ated with earlier arrival,1 faster emergency department (ED) evaluations,2–4 and improved rates and speed of tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) delivery.3 These benefits stem, at least in part, from prearrival activation of stroke teams as a result of hospital prenotification by EMS.5,6 Stroke recogni-tion by EMS providers in the field is therefore a critical step in the stroke chain of recovery. However, accurate stroke identification in the field is challenging because of variable and often nonspecific clinical presentations of patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA), as well as the high prevalence of stroke mimics.7–9 In response to this, many pre-hospital stroke scales, such as the Los Angeles Prehospital

Stroke Screen,10 the Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Screen,11 the Ontario Prehospital Stroke Screening Tool,12 and the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS),13 have been developed to improve the accuracy of prehospital stroke recognition. Despite endorsement by national guideline rec-ommendations,14 validation studies have reported variable accuracy of these tools—particularly with respect to false pos-itives resulting in low specificity.15 Furthermore, the degree to which these scales are incorporated into current EMS practice is not well documented.

We recently established a cohort study to identify and link EMS and hospital records for patients transported by EMS with suspected, confirmed, or missed IS or TIA to determine the accuracy of prehospital stroke recognition. We sought to

Background and Purpose—Prehospital activation of in-hospital stroke response hastens treatment but depends on accurate emergency medical services (EMS) stroke recognition. We sought to measure EMS stroke recognition accuracy and identify clinical factors associated with correct stroke identification.

Methods—Using EMS and hospital records, we assembled a cohort of EMS-transported suspect, confirmed, or missed ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack cases. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for EMS stroke recognition were calculated using the hospital discharge diagnosis as the gold standard. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the association between Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale use and EMS stroke recognition.

Results—During a 12-month period, 441 EMS-transported patients were enrolled; of which, 371 (84.1%) were EMS-suspected strokes and 70 (15.9%) were EMS-missed strokes. Overall, 264 cases (59.9%) were confirmed as either ischemic stroke (n=186) or transient ischemic attack (n=78). The sensitivity of EMS stroke recognition was 73.5% (95% confidence interval, 67.7–78.7), and PPV was 52.3% (95% confidence interval, 47.1–57.5). Sensitivity (84.7% versus 30.9%; P<0.0001) and PPV (56.2% versus 30.4%; P=0.0004) were higher among cases with Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale documentation. In multivariate analysis, Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale documentation was independently associated with EMS sensitivity (odds ratio, 12.0; 95% confidence interval, 5.7–25.5) and PPV (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–4.7).

Conclusions—EMS providers recognized 3 quarters of the patients with ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack; however, half of EMS-suspected strokes were false positives. Documentation of a Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale was associated with higher EMS stroke recognition sensitivity and PPV. (Stroke. 2015;46:1513-1517. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008650.)

Key Words: emergency medical services ◼ stroke, acute

Clinical Predictors of Accurate Prehospital Stroke Recognition

J. Adam Oostema, MD; John Konen, BS; Todd Chassee, MD; Mojdeh Nasiri, MD; Mathew J. Reeves, PhD

Received January 13, 2015; final revision received March 6, 2015; accepted March 27, 2015.From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, MI (J.A.O.), Department of Emergency Medicine, Michigan State

University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids (J.A.O., J.K., T.C.); Kent County Emergency Medical Services, MI (T.C.); and Department of Epidemiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing (M.N., M.J.R.).

Presented in part at the International Stroke Conference, Nashville, TN, February 11–13, 2015.The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://stroke.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.

115.008650/-/DC1.Reprint requests to J. Adam Oostema, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Secchia

Center, Room 425, 15 Michigan, NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503. E-mail oostema@msu.edu© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

Stroke is available at http://stroke.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008650

by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from

1514 Stroke June 2015

measure the prevalence of CPSS in this cohort, analyze the relationship between CPSS use and EMS diagnostic accuracy, and describe errors in prehospital stroke recognition.

MethodsThe methods used to establish the registry have been published previ-ously.16 Briefly, this observational registry was conducted in a single county in Southwest Michigan, which is served by 3 independent ad-vanced life support transporting EMS agencies that collectively pro-vide >50 000 transports per year. Patients who were transported by EMS with an impression of suspected stroke or who were diagnosed with IS or TIA after hospital arrival were included, thus capturing EMS-suspected (false positive), confirmed (true positive), and missed (false negative) stroke transports. Patients who were transported by EMS to either of 2 participating primary stroke center hospitals with a primary or secondary impression of suspected stroke/TIA were identified from electronic EMS records. We captured EMS-missed strokes by searching hospital records for patients with a final hospital discharge diagnosis of stroke or TIA who were transported by EMS. Hemorrhagic strokes were excluded. All EMS and hospital medical records were then manually linked. We abstracted data on patient de-mographics, prehospital care, ED diagnostic testing and treatment, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and discharge diagnosis. Because the local stroke transport protocol directs EMS providers to conduct a CPSS, we recorded the explicit documentation of the CPSS in the EMS record. This study was approved by the Spectrum Health Institutional Review Board.

The final diagnosis for all cases was based on the final hospital discharge diagnosis. Two authors (J.A.O. and T.C.) independently validated the final hospital discharge diagnoses based on review of medical records. Inter-rater agreement for a stroke/TIA diagnosis was high (κ=0.89). The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of EMS stroke recognition were calculated using a final hospital dis-charge diagnosis as the gold standard. Because of the fact that the number of true negatives could not be ascertained from our design, specificity and negative predictive value could not be calculated.

To characterize the role of the CPSS in EMS stroke recognition, we compared the accuracy of EMS stroke recognition between cohorts of patients with and without a documented CPSS. The differences in

sensitivity and PPV were compared using χ2 tests. To determine the independent association between CPSS use and the sensitivity of EMS stroke recognition, we used multivariable logistic regression to calcu-late the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for accurate prehospital stroke rec-ognition given CPSS documentation among confirmed stroke or TIA cases. We adjusted for potential confounders, including age, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), sex, dispatch reason (stroke versus others), and time from symptom onset. We then applied the same model among EMS-suspected stroke cases to measure the relationship between CPSS documentation and the PPV of EMS stroke suspicion.

Finally, we examined errors in EMS stroke recognition. To evaluate EMS-missed IS cases, we abstracted clinical characteristics and patient history obtained from the initial ED evaluation of cases that were sub-sequently confirmed as having IS. The documented NIHSS was used to assess for the presence of specific neurological deficits because physi-cal examination descriptions were highly variable in the ED notes. Because patients with TIA are not candidates for acute intervention and >55% of confirmed TIA cases in our data set lacked a documented NIHSS or had an NIHSS of 0 by the time of presentation in the ED, we excluded patients with TIA from this part of the analysis. We compared the clinical characteristics of EMS-recognized cases with EMS-missed cases using χ2 tests for categorical variables, Mann–Whitney U tests for ordinal variables, and Student t-tests for continuous variables. We then compared the prevalence of stroke symptoms and signs among EMS-recognized and missed strokes. We also identified the most common EMS transport impressions among missed stroke and TIA cases and the most common final discharge diagnoses among the patients without stroke transported by EMS as suspected stroke.

ResultsDuring a 1-year period, 371 cases were transported by EMS as suspected stroke or TIA, whereas another 70 stroke cases were transported by EMS for other reasons and so were designated as missed cases. Characteristics of all 441 cases are sum-marized in Table 1. The median age was 78 years, and 59% were women. A total of 264 cases (59.9%) were confirmed as

Table 1. Characteristics of EMS-Suspected or Missed Ischemic Stroke or TIA

Characteristics n=441 (%)

Age, y, median, IQR 78 (63–86)

<60 87 (19.5)

60–69 68 (15.2)

70–79 85 (19.0)

80–89 125 (28.0)

>90 76 (17.0)

Sex, female 263 (58.8)

Dispatcher-suspected stroke 318 (72.1)

EMS-suspected IS/TIA 371 (84.1)

EMS-missed IS/TIA 70 (15.9)

Confirmed TIA 78 (17.7)

Confirmed IS 186 (42.2)

Onset-to-door, ≤120 min 90 (48.4)

NIHSS, median, IQR 7 (3–17)

tPA 23 (12.4)

Endovascular therapy 10 (5.4)

EMS indicates emergency medical services; IQR, interquartile range; IS, ischemic stroke; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; TIA, transient ischemic attack; and tPA, tissue-type plasminogen activator.

Ischemic Stroke/TIANot

Ischemic Stroke/TIAEMS Suspected

194 177 371

EMS Missed70

264

Sensitivity 73.5 (67.7 to 78.7)PPV 52.3 (47.1 to 57.5)

Figure 1. Paramedic stroke recognition among 441 emergency medical services (EMS)–transported suspect or missed ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). PPV indicates positive predictive value.

Table 2. Multivariable Logistic Regression Model Results of Accurate EMS Stroke Recognition Among 264 EMS-Transported Subjects With Confirmed Ischemic Stroke or TIA

Effects OR (95% CI)

CPSS documentation (yes vs no) 12.02 (5.66–25.51)

Age, y 1.00 (0.97–1.02)

Sex, (male vs female) 0.82 (0.41–1.65)

NIHSS, per unit score 1.09 (1.04–1.15)

Time from onset, <120 vs >120 min 2.22 (1.12–4.39)

Dispatch as stroke, yes vs no 1.94 (0.91–4.12)

CI indicates confidence interval; CPSS, Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale; EMS, emergency medical services; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; OR, odds ratio; and TIA, transient ischemic attack.

by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from

Oostema et al Accuracy of Prehospital Stroke Recognition 1515

having a final discharge diagnosis of either IS (n=186) or TIA (n=78). Use of the CPSS was documented in the EMS record in 347 (79%) cases.

The overall sensitivity of EMS stroke recognition was 73.5% (95% confidence interval, 67.7–78.7), and PPV was 52.3% (95% confidence interval, 47.1–57.5; Figure 1). Among the 347 cases with a CPSS documented, the sensi-tivity of EMS provider stroke recognition was higher than that among the 94 cases where a CPSS was not documented (84.7% versus 30.9%; P<0.0001). The PPV among cases with a documented CPSS was also higher (56.2% versus 30.4%; P=0.0004).

In multivariable logistic regression analysis conducted among the 264 subjects with confirmed IS or TIA, we found that CPSS documentation was independently associated with the sensitivity of EMS stroke recognition after adjustment for patient age, sex, stroke severity (NIHSS), dispatch reason, and time from symptom onset (OR, 12.02; 95% confidence interval, 5.66–25.51; Table 2). Other factors significantly associated with increased sensitivity of EMS recognition included whether the subjects were evaluated within 120 minutes of symptom onset (OR, 2.22) and higher NIHSS (OR, 1.09). CPSS documentation was also independently associated with higher PPV of EMS stroke suspicion (2.47;

Table 3. Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Confirmed Ischemic Stroke (n=186) by EMS Recognition

All Ischemic Stroke, n=186

EMS Recognized, n=141

EMS Missed, n=45 P Value

Demographics

Age, y, median, IQR 79 (64.5–88) 79 (64.5–88) 82 (64.5–88) 0.936

Sex 107 (57.5) 79 (56.0) 28 (62.2) 0.464

Ethnicity

White 163 (87.6) 123 (87.2) 40 (88.9) 0.769

Black 15 (8.1) 11 (7.8) 4 (8.9) 0.816

Hispanic 3 (1.6) 3 (2.1) 0 0.324

Asian 2 (1.1) 2 (1.4) 0 0.422

Past medical history

Hypertension 154 (82.8) 115 (81.6) 39 (86.7) 0.429

Dyslipidemia 119 (64.5) 91 (64.5) 28 (62.2) 0.778

Previous stroke/TIA 73 (39.2) 59 (41.8) 14 (31.1) 0.199

Atrial fibrillation 69 (37.1) 51 (36.2) 18 (40.0) 0.643

Diabetes mellitus 59 (31.7) 44 (31.2) 15 (33.3) 0.79

Coronary artery disease 56 (30.1) 41 (29.1) 15 (33.3) 0.588

Smoking 20 (10.8) 14 (9.9) 6 (13.3) 0.521

Pre-event treatment

Statin 82 (44.1) 66 (46.8) 16 (35.6) 0.186

Antiplatelet (any) 94 (50.5) 74 (52.5) 20 (44.4) 0.348

Anticoagulation (any) 29 (15.6) 22 (15.6) 7 (15.6) 0.994

Clinical presentation

NIHSS, median, IQR 7 (3–18) 10 (4–19) 4 (1–9) <0.001

Unilateral weakness complaint 126 (67.7) 104 (73.8) 22 (48.9) 0.002

Unilateral weakness on examination 128 (68.8) 104 (73.8) 24 (53.3) 0.010

Aphasia 71 (38.2) 55 (39.0) 16 (35.6) 0.678

Dysarthria 88 (47.3) 69 (48.9) 19 (42.2) 0.432

Vision complaints 42 (22.6) 31 (22.0) 11 (25.6) 0.731

Altered mental status 36 (19.4) 28 (19.9) 8 (18.6) 0.758

Ataxia 31 (16.7) 18 (12.8) 13 (30.2) 0.011

Headache 27 (14.5) 18 (12.8) 9 (20.9) 0.230

Vertigo 15 (8.1) 8 (5.7) 7 (16.3) 0.034

Dizziness (nonvertigo) 12 (6.5) 8 (5.7) 4 (9.3) 0.445

Vomiting 11 (5.9) 6 (4.3) 5 (11.6) 0.090

ED treatment

Door-to-CT time, min … 34.6 84.7 <0.001

tPA delivery … 14.9 4.4 0.074

CT indicates computed tomography; ED, emergency department; EMS, emergency medical services; IQR, Interquartile range; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; TIA, transient ischemic attack; and tPA, tissue-type plasminogen activator.

by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from

1516 Stroke June 2015

95% confidence interval, 1.30–4.69) among the 371 EMS-suspected stroke cases.

The clinical characteristics of the 141 EMS-recognized IS cases and the 45 missed IS cases are described in Table 3. Demographics and past medical history were similar between the 2 groups. A complaint of unilateral weakness (73.8% ver-sus 48.9%; P=0.002) and unilateral weakness on examination (73.8% versus 53.3%; P=0.01) was more common among EMS-recognized than missed IS, whereas vertigo (5.7% versus 16.3%; P=0.034) and ataxia (12.8% versus 30.2%; P=0.02) were more common among EMS-missed strokes. The sensitivity of EMS stroke recognition was the highest among patients who pre-sented with symptoms and signs included in the CPSS (Table I in the online-only Data Supplement). EMS-recognized strokes had faster door-to-computed tomographic times (34.6 versus 84.7 minutes; P<0.001), and there was a trend toward greater likelihood of tPA delivery (14.9% versus 4.4%; P=0.074). EMS-recognized stroke cases had higher stroke severity (median NIHSS 10 versus 4; Mann–Whitney U test; P<0.001). The fre-quency distribution of NIHSS categories is shown in Figure 2.

The most common EMS impressions among the 70 missed stroke transports included generalized weakness (22.9%), altered mental status (14.3%), and dizziness (10.0%; Table 4). Seven EMS-missed cases (10%) were transported for a focal neurological complaint, such as unilateral weakness or aphasia without explicitly identifying the patient as a suspected stroke. The final diagnoses of the 177 cases transported by EMS as suspected strokes who were subsequently given a nonstroke diagnosis are also shown in Table 4. Discharge diagnoses were highly varied among EMS false-positive cases, and more than 1 quarter received a nonspecific, symptom-based discharge diagnosis after diagnostic workup failed to identify a spe-cific cause. The most common stroke mimics were infections (12.4%), seizures (11.3%), and syncope (10.2%).

DiscussionTransportation by EMS is an important predictor of improved in-hospital stroke response and use of tPA for patients with acute IS.1–3 These benefits likely stem in part from earlier acti-vation of hospital stroke code processes through prearrival notification.5 Therefore, accurate prehospital stroke recogni-tion is a critical link in the stroke chain of recovery. Although prehospital stroke scales are endorsed by national guidelines,17

their real-world effect on EMS stroke recognition is unclear. A recent meta-analysis of 3 validation studies of the CPSS found sensitivities ranging from 79% to 95%15; however, a recently published study conducted in New York demonstrated EMS sensitivity of only 50% despite CPSS education and incorpo-ration into local stroke protocols.18

In our cohort of EMS-transported cases, EMS sensitivity for stroke recognition was 74%, slightly lower than the observed range in previous CPSS validation studies.15 Furthermore, PPV of EMS suspicion of stroke was only 52%, suggesting that there is opportunity for improvement by reducing both the over- and under-recognition of stroke by EMS providers.

Our analysis suggests that a strong relationship exists between documentation of the CPSS and the sensitivity (adjusted OR, 12.02) and PPV (adjusted OR, 2.47) of prehos-pital stroke recognition. These relationships were independent of stroke severity, dispatch reason, and time from symptom onset, age, and sex. Our results corroborate those of a recently published analysis of prehospital stroke recognition, which reported a similarly strong association between CPSS use and sensitivity.18 To our knowledge, this is the first study to report higher PPV among EMS cases with a documented CPSS as opposed to no documented stroke scale. Although this supports the hypothesis that use of CPSS improves overall diagnostic accuracy, we suspect that paramedics may use and document a CPSS preferentially among patients with more obvious stroke signs who are already recognized as suspect stroke/TIA cases.

Symptoms and signs not included in the CPSS, such as ver-tigo (16%) and limb ataxia (30%), were more common among missed stroke cases. Nevertheless, over half of the EMS-missed strokes demonstrated unilateral weakness in the ED and only 30% (11/37) of those cases had a documented CPSS, suggesting that more consistent application of the CPSS in the prehospital setting could improve EMS sensitivity. Because nearly half of EMS-missed strokes were transported with EMS impressions of generalized weakness, altered mental status, or dizziness, increased use of the CPSS among these populations may improve EMS stroke recognition sensitivity.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more

NIHSS

EMS Recognized

EMS Missed

Figure 2. Stroke severity among emergency medical services (EMS) recognized (n=141) and EMS-missed (n=45) strokes. NIHSS indicates National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.

Table 4. Analysis of EMS Stroke Recognition Errors: EMS Impression Among 70 EMS-Missed Ischemic Stroke/TIA Cases and Final Discharge Diagnosis for 177 Nonstroke Cases Transported by EMS as Suspected Stroke

EMS Impression for EMS-Missed IS/TIA n=70

Discharge Diagnosis for EMS False-Positive

IS/TIA n=177

Generalized weakness 16 (22.9) Infection 22 (12.4)

Altered mental status 10 (14.3) Seizure 20 (11.3)

Dizziness 7 (10.0) Syncope/transient hypotension

18 (10.2)

Focal neurological finding 7 (10.0) Complex migraine 13 (7.3)

Cardiovascular 5 (7.1) Hypertensive emergency 7 (4.0)

Diabetic 4 (5.7) Bell palsy 6 (3.4)

Other/not specified 21 (30.0) Miscellaneous specific diagnosis

43 (24.3)

Nonspecific diagnosis 48 (27.1)

EMS indicates emergency medical services; IS, ischemic stroke; and TIA, transient ischemic attack.

by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from

Oostema et al Accuracy of Prehospital Stroke Recognition 1517

Other factors associated with EMS sensitivity were early presentation (OR, 2.22) and increasing NIHSS (OR, 1.09 for each 1 point increase). These findings have also been described previously18 and suggest that paramedics are more likely to recognize patients with more obvious stroke presentations or those perceived to be possible candidates for tPA therapy. An emergency dispatcher impression of possible stroke was also associated with a marginally significant increased likelihood of accurate EMS provider stroke recognition in the multi-variable analysis (OR, 1.94). This finding might suggest that dispatch reasons provide a degree of priming for paramedics to consider stroke. If so, this may be another potential target for intervention. Recent studies of the accuracy of emergency dispatcher stroke recognition suggest fairly low sensitivi-ties19–21; however, incorporation of the CPSS into dispatcher protocols may improve this.22,23 Future studies are needed to determine whether improved dispatcher recognition translates into improved EMS provider stroke recognition, prehospital notification, and thus downstream in-hospital stroke care.

Historically, the prehospital links in the stroke chain of recovery have received less attention than in-hospital care. Substantial evidence suggests that EMS use is associated with faster ED stroke evaluations2,4 and increased opportunity for treatment with tPA.3 Our results identified opportunity to improve EMS provider recognition by reducing the rate of missed strokes and false positives through more consistent application of the CPSS. Given the critical role EMS stroke recognition plays in providing high-quality prehospital stroke care,16 future studies should focus on refinement and imple-mentation of prehospital stroke screening tools and measure the effect of improvements in recognition on patient outcomes.

Sources of FundingThis study was supported by a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation Investigator Initiated Award.

DisclosuresNone.

References 1. Turan TN, Hertzberg V, Weiss P, McClellan W, Presley R, Krompf K,

et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with early hospital arrival after stroke symptom onset. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;14:272–277. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2005.07.002.

2. Gache K, Couralet M, Nitenberg G, Leleu H, Minvielle E. The role of calling EMS versus using private transportation in improving the man-agement of stroke in France. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013;17:217–222. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2012.755584.

3. Ekundayo OJ, Saver JL, Fonarow GC, Schwamm LH, Xian Y, Zhao X, et al. Patterns of emergency medical services use and its association with timely stroke treatment: findings from Get With the Guidelines-Stroke. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:262–269. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000089.

4. Sheppard JP, Mellor RM, Greenfield S, Mant J, Quinn T, Sandler D, et al; CLAHRC BBC Investigators. The association between prehospital care and in-hospital treatment decisions in acute stroke: a cohort study. Emerg Med J. 2015;32:93–99. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2013-203026.

5. Lin CB, Peterson ED, Smith EE, Saver JL, Liang L, Xian Y, et al. Emergency medical service hospital prenotification is associated with improved evaluation and treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:514–522. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.965210.

6. Patel MD, Rose KM, O’Brien EC, Rosamond WD. Prehospital notifica-tion by emergency medical services reduces delays in stroke evaluation:

findings from the North Carolina stroke care collaborative. Stroke. 2011;42:2263–2268. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.605857.

7. Kidwell CS, Starkman S, Eckstein M, Saver JL. Prevalence of true strokes and stroke mimics among patients transported to the emergency department (ED) by prehospital personnel. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998;7:378–378.

8. Kothari R, Barsan W, Brott T, Broderick J, Ashbrock S. Frequency and accuracy of prehospital diagnosis of acute stroke. Stroke. 1995;26:937–941.

9. Smith WS, Isaacs M, Corry MD. Accuracy of paramedic identification of stroke and transient ischemic attack in the field. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998;2:170–175.

10. Kidwell CS, Starkman S, Eckstein M, Weems K, Saver JL. Identifying stroke in the field. Prospective validation of the Los Angeles prehospital stroke screen (LAPSS). Stroke. 2000;31:71–76.

11. Bray JE, Martin J, Cooper G, Barger B, Bernard S, Bladin C. Paramedic identification of stroke: community validation of the Melbourne ambulance stroke screen. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;20:28–33. doi: 10.1159/000086201.

12. Chenkin J, Gladstone DJ, Verbeek PR, Lindsay P, Fang J, Black SE, et al. Predictive value of the Ontario prehospital stroke screening tool for the identification of patients with acute stroke. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13:153–159. doi: 10.1080/10903120802706146.

13. Kothari RU, Pancioli A, Liu T, Brott T, Broderick J. Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale: reproducibility and validity. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33:373–378.

14. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Clinical Cardiology. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare profession-als from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44:870–947. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a.

15. Brandler ES, Sharma M, Sinert RH, Levine SR. Prehospital stroke scales in urban environments: a systematic review. Neurology. 2014;82:2241–2249. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000523.

16. Oostema JA, Nasiri M, Chassee T, Reeves MJ. The quality of prehospi-tal ischemic stroke care: compliance with guidelines and impact on in-hospital stroke response. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23:2773–2779. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.06.030.

17. Acker JE 3rd, Pancioli AM, Crocco TJ, Eckstein MK, Jauch EC, Larrabee H, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Expert Panel on Emergency Medical Services Systems, Stroke Council. Implementation strategies for emergency medical services within stroke systems of care: a policy statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Expert Panel on Emergency Medical Services Systems and the Stroke Council. Stroke. 2007;38:3097–3115. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.186094.

18. Gropen TI, Gokaldas R, Poleshuck R, Spencer J, Janjua N, Szarek M, et al. Factors related to the sensitivity of emergency medical service impression of stroke. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18:387–392. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2013.864359.

19. Buck BH, Starkman S, Eckstein M, Kidwell CS, Haines J, Huang R, et al. Dispatcher recognition of stroke using the National Academy Medical Priority Dispatch System. Stroke. 2009;40:2027–2030. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.545574.

20. Deakin CD, Alasaad M, King P, Thompson F. Is ambulance telephone triage using advanced medical priority dispatch protocols able to identify patients with acute stroke correctly? Emerg Med J. 2009;26:442–445. doi: 10.1136/emj.2008.059733.

21. Caceres JA, Adil MM, Jadhav V, Chaudhry SA, Pawar S, Rodriguez GJ, et al. Diagnosis of stroke by emergency medical dispatchers and its impact on the prehospital care of patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22:e610–e614. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.07.039.

22. De Luca A, Giorgi Rossi P, Villa GF; Stroke Group Italian Society Pre-Hospital Emergency Services. The use of Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale during telephone dispatch interview increases the accuracy in iden-tifying stroke and transient ischemic attack symptoms. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:513. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-513.

23. Watkins CL, Leathley MJ, Jones SP, Ford GA, Quinn T, Sutton CJ; Emergency Stroke Calls: Obtaining Rapid Telephone Triage (ESCORTT) Group. Training emergency services’ dispatchers to recognise stroke: an interrupted time-series analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:318. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-318.

by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental Table I: EMS stroke detection rates among ischemic stroke patients with specific

symptoms and signs

Clinical Characteristic

N

Recognized

by EMS

EMS sensitivity

(%)

Unilateral Weakness Complaint 126 104 82.5

Unilateral Weakness on Exam 128 104 81.3

Aphasia 71 55 77.5

Dysarthria 88 69 78.4

Vision Complaints 42 31 73.8

Altered Mental Status 36 28 77.8

Ataxia 31 18 58.1

Headache 27 18 66.7

Vertigo 15 8 53.3

Dizziness (non-vertigo) 12 8 66.7

Vomiting 11 6 54.5

J. Adam Oostema, John Konen, Todd Chassee, Mojdeh Nasiri and Mathew J. ReevesClinical Predictors of Accurate Prehospital Stroke Recognition

Print ISSN: 0039-2499. Online ISSN: 1524-4628 Copyright © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved.

is published by the American Heart Association, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231Stroke doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008650

2015;46:1513-1517; originally published online April 28, 2015;Stroke. 

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/46/6/1513World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/suppl/2015/04/30/STROKEAHA.115.008650.DC1.htmlData Supplement (unedited) at:

  http://stroke.ahajournals.org//subscriptions/

is online at: Stroke Information about subscribing to Subscriptions: 

http://www.lww.com/reprints Information about reprints can be found online at: Reprints:

  document. Permissions and Rights Question and Answer process is available in the

Request Permissions in the middle column of the Web page under Services. Further information about thisOnce the online version of the published article for which permission is being requested is located, click

can be obtained via RightsLink, a service of the Copyright Clearance Center, not the Editorial Office.Strokein Requests for permissions to reproduce figures, tables, or portions of articles originally publishedPermissions:

by guest on May 26, 2015http://stroke.ahajournals.org/Downloaded from