Portable stroke detection devices: a systematic scoping review of prehospital applications.
Diagnosis
Emergency medical services
Prehospital
Stroke
Technology
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 06 2022
16 06 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
accepted:
13
05
2022
entrez:
16
6
2022
pubmed:
17
6
2022
medline:
22
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The worldwide burden of stroke remains high, with increasing time-to-treatment correlated with worse outcomes. Yet stroke subtype determination, most importantly between stroke/non-stroke and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, is not confirmed until hospital CT diagnosis, resulting in suboptimal prehospital triage and delayed treatment. In this study, we survey portable, non-invasive diagnostic technologies that could streamline triage by making this initial determination of stroke type, thereby reducing time-to-treatment. Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a scoping review of portable stroke diagnostic devices. The search was executed in PubMed and Scopus, and all studies testing technology for the detection of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage were eligible for inclusion. Extracted data included type of technology, location, feasibility, time to results, and diagnostic accuracy. After a screening of 296 studies, 16 papers were selected for inclusion. Studied devices utilized various types of diagnostic technology, including near-infrared spectroscopy (6), ultrasound (4), electroencephalography (4), microwave technology (1), and volumetric impedance spectroscopy (1). Three devices were tested prior to hospital arrival, 6 were tested in the emergency department, and 7 were tested in unspecified hospital settings. Median measurement time was 3 minutes (IQR: 3 minutes to 5.6 minutes). Several technologies showed high diagnostic accuracy in severe stroke and intracranial hematoma detection. Numerous emerging portable technologies have been reported to detect and stratify stroke to potentially improve prehospital triage. However, the majority of these current technologies are still in development and utilize a variety of accuracy metrics, making inter-technology comparisons difficult. Standardizing evaluation of diagnostic accuracy may be helpful in further optimizing portable stroke detection technology for clinical use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The worldwide burden of stroke remains high, with increasing time-to-treatment correlated with worse outcomes. Yet stroke subtype determination, most importantly between stroke/non-stroke and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, is not confirmed until hospital CT diagnosis, resulting in suboptimal prehospital triage and delayed treatment. In this study, we survey portable, non-invasive diagnostic technologies that could streamline triage by making this initial determination of stroke type, thereby reducing time-to-treatment.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a scoping review of portable stroke diagnostic devices. The search was executed in PubMed and Scopus, and all studies testing technology for the detection of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage were eligible for inclusion. Extracted data included type of technology, location, feasibility, time to results, and diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS
After a screening of 296 studies, 16 papers were selected for inclusion. Studied devices utilized various types of diagnostic technology, including near-infrared spectroscopy (6), ultrasound (4), electroencephalography (4), microwave technology (1), and volumetric impedance spectroscopy (1). Three devices were tested prior to hospital arrival, 6 were tested in the emergency department, and 7 were tested in unspecified hospital settings. Median measurement time was 3 minutes (IQR: 3 minutes to 5.6 minutes). Several technologies showed high diagnostic accuracy in severe stroke and intracranial hematoma detection.
CONCLUSION
Numerous emerging portable technologies have been reported to detect and stratify stroke to potentially improve prehospital triage. However, the majority of these current technologies are still in development and utilize a variety of accuracy metrics, making inter-technology comparisons difficult. Standardizing evaluation of diagnostic accuracy may be helpful in further optimizing portable stroke detection technology for clinical use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35710360
doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00663-z
pii: 10.1186/s12873-022-00663-z
pmc: PMC9204948
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Neurol. 2020 Jul 7;20(1):269
pubmed: 32635897
J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Jun;40:136-146
pubmed: 28279553
Stroke. 2021 Apr;52(4):1437-1440
pubmed: 33596672
ACS Nano. 2017 Oct 24;11(10):10480-10488
pubmed: 28976180
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):11-20
pubmed: 25517348
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Mil Med. 2018 Jul 1;183(7-8):e318-e323
pubmed: 29420761
Stroke. 2005 Apr;36(4):773-6
pubmed: 15731478
Front Neurol. 2018 Oct 17;9:847
pubmed: 30386287
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 28;10(1):18465
pubmed: 33116187
Crit Ultrasound J. 2014 Feb 27;6(1):3
pubmed: 24572006
Stroke. 2015 Jun;46(6):1508-12
pubmed: 25899242
Stroke. 2021 Oct;52(10):3391-3398
pubmed: 34187180
Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 29;6:37620
pubmed: 27897197
Neurology. 2014 Jul 22;83(4):364-73
pubmed: 24944261
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jan;22(1):67-72
pubmed: 25565489
Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon). 2019 Oct;24(sup1):96-104
pubmed: 30689436
Sensors (Basel). 2020 May 03;20(9):
pubmed: 32375220
Neurosurg Focus. 2021 Jul;51(1):E11
pubmed: 34198255
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Circulation. 2017 Dec 12;136(24):2311-2321
pubmed: 28943516
Neurophysiol Clin. 2020 Feb;50(1):21-25
pubmed: 32014371
Stroke. 2014 Jan;45(1):87-91
pubmed: 24281224
JAMA Neurol. 2021 Nov 1;78(11):1404-1406
pubmed: 34542567
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143
pubmed: 30453902
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1019-30
pubmed: 25671798
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012;33(3):262-71
pubmed: 22261817
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Dec;9(12):1166-1172
pubmed: 27986846
Stroke. 2016 Jul;47(7):1772-6
pubmed: 27272487
Stroke. 2020 Nov;51(11):3361-3365
pubmed: 32942967
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Nov;10(11):1079-1084
pubmed: 29511114
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Nov;11(11):1085-1090
pubmed: 31201289
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Nov;61(11):2806-17
pubmed: 24951677
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 10;10(1):21647
pubmed: 33303768
JAMA Neurol. 2017 May 1;74(5):549-556
pubmed: 28319240
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Semin Neurol. 2018 Apr;38(2):208-211
pubmed: 29791947
Stroke. 2008 Aug;39(8):2264-7
pubmed: 18556587
Lancet Neurol. 2005 Nov;4(11):727-34
pubmed: 16239179
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Sep;9(9):834-836
pubmed: 28360354
Eur J Radiol Open. 2020 Jul 29;7:100246
pubmed: 32775555
J Neuroimaging. 2005 Jan;15(1):57-63
pubmed: 15574575
J Neurotrauma. 2017 Jul 1;34(13):2176-2182
pubmed: 28287909
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Aug;28(8):2280-2286
pubmed: 31174955
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110
pubmed: 29367334
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Feb;47(2):523-544
pubmed: 28640484
JAMA. 2019 Jul 16;322(3):252-263
pubmed: 31310296
BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 26;20(1):30
pubmed: 32336270
J Neurotrauma. 2010 Sep;27(9):1597-604
pubmed: 20568959
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
Neurocrit Care. 2009;11(2):288-95
pubmed: 19649749
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306
pubmed: 25882510
Biomed Eng Online. 2017 May 30;16(1):63
pubmed: 28558773
Prev Vet Med. 2011 Aug 1;101(1-2):18-34
pubmed: 21601933
Stroke. 2016 Aug;47(8):1997-2002
pubmed: 27364531
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 24;9(10):e109762
pubmed: 25343496
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 2;15(10):e0239653
pubmed: 33007053
Int J Stroke. 2019 Aug;14(6):592-602
pubmed: 31354081
Circulation. 2021 Feb 23;143(8):e254-e743
pubmed: 33501848
Brain Inj. 2019;33(7):875-883
pubmed: 31284787
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Aug;32(4):414-418
pubmed: 28351447