Uncooperative patients suspected of acute stroke ineligible for prehospital stroke screening test by emergency medical service providers: final hospital diagnoses and characteristics

Han, Sol; Song, Sung Wook; Hong, Hansol; Kim, Woo Jeong; Kang, Young Joon; Park, Chang Bae; Kang, Jeong Ho; Bu, Ji Hwan; Lee, Sung Kgun; Ko, Seo Young; Lee, Soo Hoon; Kang, Chul-Hoo

doi:.0..

Original Article

doi: https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.22.372 [Accepted]

Uncooperative patients suspected of acute stroke ineligible for prehospital stroke screening test by emergency medical service providers: final hospital diagnoses and characteristics

Sol Han¹

¹Department of Emergency Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju, Korea
²Department of Emergency Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea
³Department of Medical Education, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea

Correspondence Sung Wook Song Email: sungwook78@gmail.com

Received: September 5, 2022. Revised: October 23, 2022. Accepted: November 2, 2022. Published online: February 14, 2023.

ABSTRACT

Objective
This study investigated the final hospital diagnoses and characteristics of uncooperative prehospital patients suspected of acute stroke who were unable to undergo a prehospital stroke screening test.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted from January 2015 to December 2019 to analyze the final hospital diagnoses and characteristics of uncooperative patients suspected of prehospital acute stroke. Considering the Korean emergency medical services (EMS) stroke screening policy, we also analyzed three scenario-based prehospital stroke screening performances using the final hospital diagnoses as the gold standard.
Results
Of 2,836 EMS-transported adult patients who met the prehospital criteria for suspicion of acute stroke, 486 (17.1%) were uncooperative, and 570 (20.1%) had a confirmed final diagnosis of either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The final diagnosis of acute stroke in the uncooperative group did not differ from that in the cooperative group (22.0% vs. 19.7%, P=0.246). The diagnostic performances in the first scenario (conservative approach) were as follows: 79.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%–83.1%), 90.2% specificity (95% CI, 88.8%–91.6%), and 0.849 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (95% CI, 0.829–0.868). No significant difference was evident in the AUC between the second (real-world approach) and third (contrahypothesis approach) scenarios (0.792 [95% CI, 0.775–0.810] vs. 0.782 [95% CI, 0.762–0.803], P>0.05).
Conclusion
We provide quantitative evidence of overestimation (false positive) and underestimation (false negative) in the uncooperative group depending on the scenario-based EMS stroke screening policy for uncooperative prehospital patients suspected of acute stroke.

Keywords: Emergency medical services; Stroke; Early diagnosis; Sensitivity and specificity