![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Background
Stroke is the second most common cause of death worldwide and a frequent cause of adult disability in developed countries. No single outcome measure can describe or predict all dimensions of recovery and disability after acute stroke. Several scales have proven reliability and validity in stroke trials.
Objectives
The aim of the work was to evaluate the FOUR score predictability for outcome of patients with acute ischemic stroke in comparison with the NIHSS and the GCS.
Methods
127 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke were enrolled. NIHSS, GCS, and FOUR score were collected at 24 and 72 h. Patients were prospectively followed up for the following outcomes; In-hospital or 30 days mortality and Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months. The areas under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between the three scores.
Results
Twenty-five (19.7%) patients died, and seventy-two (56.7%) had unfavourable outcome. The NIHSS, the GCS, and the FOUR score were not different in predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.783, 0.779, 0.796 at 24-h and 0.973, 0.975, 0.977 at 72-h). The NIHSS, the GCS, and the FOUR score done at 24-h were not different in predicting unfavourable outcome (AUC: 0.893, 0.868, and 0.865, respectively). However, the NIHSS done at 72-h showed significantly higher AUC than the GCS score (0.958 versus 0.931, p = 0.041), and higher than the Four score (0.958 versus 0.909, p = 0.011).
Conclusions
The GCS and the FOUR score are accurate predictors of mortality after acute ischemic stroke, and are equal in prediction to the NIHSS. The NIHSS is more accurate than the GCS and the FOUR score in predicting poor neurologic outcome.
Notes
Peer review under responsibility of Alexandria University Faculty of Medicine.
Available online 20 November 2014