Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Introduction: Rapid imaging in acute stroke is critical and often occurs before full examination. Early, reliable examination findings clarify diagnosis and improve treatment times. The DeyeCOM sign has been described as a predictor of ischemic stroke. In this study, we evaluate a sustained DeyeCOM sign on serial computed tomography scans in prediction of large vessel occlusion.
Methods: Between April and June 2017, we retrospectively reviewed 46 patients with acute stroke from the University of California, San Diego Stroke Registry, who had both computed tomography and computed tomography angiography as part of their acute work-up. A DeyeCOM(+) sign was defined as a conjugate gaze deviation on imaging of at least 15°. DeyeCOM(++) was defined as sustained gaze deviation on both scans.
Results: Three groups of patients were observed: DeyeCOM(++), nonsustained gaze deviation, and no gaze deviation (DeyeCOM(--)). All patients in the DeyeCOM(++) (8 of 8, 100%) had large vessel occlusion. Of those with nonsustained gaze deviation, 2 of 7 (29%) had large vessel occlusion. No patients in the DeyeCOM(--) (0 of 31, 100%) had large vessel occlusion. The specificity and sensitivity of DeyeCOM(++) for large vessel occlusion was 100% (confidence interval [CI] .90-1.0) and 80% (CI .44-.97). The specificity and sensitivity of DeyeCOM(--) for absence of large vessel occlusion was 100% (CI .69-1.0) and 86% (CI .70-.95).
Conclusions: DeyeCOM(++) had 100% specificity for large vessel occlusion, whereas DeyeCOM(--) had a 100% specificity for absence of large vessel occlusion. Sustained DeyeCOM, whether positive or negative, is a strong predictor of ultimate diagnosis that could lead to quicker endovascular treatment times.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5937983 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.12.035 | DOI Listing |