Analysis and modelling of mistriage in the Stockholm stroke triage system.
Stroke
ambulance
decision curve analysis
thrombectomy
triage
Journal
European stroke journal
ISSN: 2396-9881
Titre abrégé: Eur Stroke J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101688446
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
25
08
2021
accepted:
13
01
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
2
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Stockholm Stroke Triage System (SSTS) is a prehospital triage system for detection of patients eligible for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Assessment of hemiparesis combined with ambulance-hospital teleconsultation is used to route patients directly to the thrombectomy centre. Some patients are not identified and require secondary transport for EVT (undertriage) while others taken to the thrombectomy centre do not undergo EVT (overtriage). The aims of this study were to characterize mistriaged patients, model for and evaluate alternative triage algorithms. Patients with suspected stroke transported by priority 1 ground ambulance between October 2017 and October 2018 (n = 2905) were included. Three triage algorithms were modelled using prehospital data. Decision curve analysis was performed to calculate net benefit (correctly routing patients for EVT without increasing mistriage) of alternative models vs SSTS. Undertriage for EVT occurred in n = 35/2582 (1.4%) and overtriage in n = 239/323 (74.0%). Compared to correct thrombectomy triages, undertriaged patients were younger and had lower median NIHSS (10 vs 18), despite 62.9% with an M1 occlusion. In overtriaged patients, 77.0% had a stroke diagnosis (29.7% haemorrhagic). Hemiparesis and FAST items Undertriaged patients had lower NIHSS, likely due to better compensated proximal occlusions. SSTS was superior to other models for identifying EVT candidates, but lacked information allowing comparison to other prehospital scales. Using prehospital data, alternative models did not outperform the SSTS in finding EVT candidates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35647317
doi: 10.1177/23969873221077845
pii: 10.1177_23969873221077845
pmc: PMC9134772
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
126-133Informations de copyright
© European Stroke Organisation 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Références
Stroke. 2017 Mar;48(3):568-573
pubmed: 28232591
Pract Neurol. 2013 Feb;13(1):21-8
pubmed: 23315456
Stroke. 2014 Jan;45(1):87-91
pubmed: 24281224
Stroke. 2022 Feb;53(2):473-481
pubmed: 34583527
Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2018 Sep 3;3(4):215-221
pubmed: 30637127
Stroke. 2018 Apr;49(4):945-951
pubmed: 29540611
Neurology. 2020 Feb 25;94(8):e851-e860
pubmed: 31980580
Eur Stroke J. 2016 Jun;1(2):85-92
pubmed: 31008269
Br Med J. 1961 Feb 4;1(5222):309-14
pubmed: 13681380
Stroke. 2012 Oct;43(10):2666-70
pubmed: 22879096
BMJ. 2016 Jan 25;352:i6
pubmed: 26810254
BMJ. 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527
pubmed: 26511519
Neurology. 2020 Feb 25;94(8):341-342
pubmed: 31980583
JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jun 1;77(6):691-699
pubmed: 32250423
Stroke. 2021 Apr;52(4):1441-1445
pubmed: 33641383
Circulation. 2017 Dec 12;136(24):2311-2321
pubmed: 28943516
Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74
pubmed: 17099194
Circulation. 2019 Mar 26;139(13):1568-1577
pubmed: 30700144
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Mar;16(3):227-237
pubmed: 28229894
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Mar;20(3):213-221
pubmed: 33422191
J Classif. 2020 Oct;37(3):696-708
pubmed: 33250548
Stroke. 2005 Oct;36(10):2121-5
pubmed: 16151026
Front Neurol. 2021 Nov 29;12:765296
pubmed: 34912286
J Neurol. 2016 Aug;263(8):1633-40
pubmed: 27272907
JAMA Neurol. 2021 Feb 1;78(2):157-164
pubmed: 33252631
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2019 Sep;50(9):2500-2506
pubmed: 31337298