2018
DOI: 10.1161/strokeaha.117.019228
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Los Angeles Motor Scale to Identify Large Vessel Occlusion

Abstract: The LAMS performed in the field by paramedics identifies LVO and CSC-appropriate patients with good accuracy. The LAMS performs comparably or better than more extended prehospital scales and the full National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
52
0
11

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 106 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
52
0
11
Order By: Relevance
“…This was the most accurate model when compared to the chance level of prediction (52%, Table 3 ). For comparison, currently used prehospital stroke scales such as the Los Angeles Motor Scales which are designed to designed to detect stroke from large vessel occlusion have reported a comparable accuracy of 0.72 36 . Future studies are needed to determine the additive value of the Muse headband.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was the most accurate model when compared to the chance level of prediction (52%, Table 3 ). For comparison, currently used prehospital stroke scales such as the Los Angeles Motor Scales which are designed to designed to detect stroke from large vessel occlusion have reported a comparable accuracy of 0.72 36 . Future studies are needed to determine the additive value of the Muse headband.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…New specific scales for LVO patients have been created, but most are still uncommon in EMS [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Our group developed and validated the RACE scale [ 12 ] in 2014, which has received endorsement by international guidelines [ 35 , 36 , 37 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study also compares VAN with the pre-existing and validated LVO screening tools like RACE, CPSS, and FAST-ED. [3][4][5] Our study confirms that VAN is comparable to other LVO screening tools 0 (0-1) 1 (0-2) 0 (0-0) 1 (.86-1.14)* Visual fields baseline: median (IQR) 0 (0-1) 1 (0-2) 0 (0-0) 1 (.73-1.27) a Right upper extremity baseline: Median (IQR) 0 (0-1) 1 (0-3) 0 (0-1) 1 (.59-1.41)* Left upper extremity baseline: median (IQR) 0 (0-1) 1 (0-3) 0 (0-1) 1 (.73-1.27)* Language baseline: median (IQR) 0 (0-1) 2 (0-2) 0 (0-1) 2 (1.86-2.14) Neglect baseline: median (IQR) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-1) 0 (0-0) 0 (À.14-.14)* Any arm weakness: n (%) except Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), 6 which we could not extrapolate in this study based on NIHSS due to absence of data on distal limb strength. Advantages of VAN include an easy to administer test as the mnemonic guides the examination steps and the results are dichotomous either positive or negative, thus no score calculation is required.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our study shows a higher accuracy for VAN 72% and a higher NPV 88% compared to that study. 6 VAN and FAST-ED are the only 2 LVO screening tools that rely heavily on cortical signs for prediction of LVO. AIS have 4 times higher odds of having an LVO if they have any of the cortical signs (vision, aphasia, or neglect) on exam in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%