Background:
Isolated mental status changes as presenting sign (EoSC+), are not uncommon stroke code triggers. As stroke alerts, they still require the same intensive resources be applied. We previously showed that EoSC+ strokes (EoSC+CVA+) account for 8-9% of EoSC+ codes but only 0.1-0.2% of all codes. Whether these result in thrombolytic treatment (rt-PA), and the characteristics/ risk factor profiles of EoSC+CVA+ patients, have not been reported.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of stroke codes from an IRB approved registry, from 2004 to 2018, was performed. EoSC+ definition used was consistent with prior publications (NIHSS>0 for Q1a, 1b, or 1c with remaining elements scored 0). Other definitions were also assessed. Characteristics and risk factors were compared for EoSC+, EoSC+CVA+, and rt-PA (EoSC+ CVA+TPA+) patients.
Results:
EoSC+ occurred in 59/2982 (1.98%) of all stroke codes. EoSC+CVA+ occurred in 8/59 (13.56%) of EoSC+ codes and 8/2982 (0.27%) of all stroke codes. 6/8 (75%) of EoSC+CVA+ scored NIHSS=1. Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.009), HTN (p=0.02), and history of stroke/TIA (p=0.002) were less common in EoSC+. No demographic/ risk factor differences were noted for [EoSC+CVA+ vs. EoSC+CVA-]. No cases of rt-PA eligibility/ treatment were noted. In EoSC+CVA+ analysis, imaging positive stroke/intracranial hemorrhage was noted on only 3 cases (3/2982=0.10% of all stroke codes) and none were posterior stroke.
Conclusions:
EoSC+ is not an uncommon reason to activate stroke codes, but rarely results in stroke/TIA (0.27%) or stroke (0.10%), and in our analysis never (0%) resulted in rt-PA. Sub-analysis did not show missed rt-PA or posterior strokes. This adds information for application of limited acute stroke code resources. Though stroke codes must still to be activated, understanding characteristics, and knowing that EoSC+CVA+ patients are unlikely to receive rt-PA, may help triage stroke resources. Further investigation is warranted.