Comparison of conventional and modern methods in determining ischemic stroke etiology by general and stroke neurologists

Abstract

Background/aim: To investigate the consistency between stroke and general neurologists in subtype assignment using Trial of ORG-10172 using Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) and Causative Classification of Stroke (CCS) systems. Materials and methods: Fifty consecutive, acute ischemic stroke patients admitted to Stroke Unit were recruited. Patients were classified two stroke and two general neurologists, each from different medical centers, according to TOAST followed by CCS. Each neurologist was assessed for consistency and compliance in pairs. Concordance among all four neurologists was investigated and evaluated using Kappa(ĸ)-value. Results: Kappa(ĸ)-value of diagnostic compliance between stroke neurologists was 0.61 (95%CI 0.45-0.77) for TOAST and 0.78 (95%CI 0.62-0.94) for CSS-5. Kappa(ĸ)-value was 0.64 (95%CI 0.48–0.80) for TOAST and 0.75 (95%CI 0.60–0.91) for CCS-5 for general neurologists. Compliance was moderate [ĸ:0.59 (95%CI 0.52–0.65)] in TOAST and was strong [ĸ:0.75 (95%CI 0.68–0.81)] in CCS-5 for all 4 neurologists. ‘Cardioembolism’(91.04%) has reached the highest compliance in both systems. The frequency of group with ‘undetermined etiologies’ was less in CCS (26%) compared to TOAST. Conclusions: The CCS system improved the compliance in both stroke and general neurologists compared with TOAST. These suggest that automatic, evidence-based, easily reproducible CCS system was superior to TOAST system. Keywords: TOAST, CCS, Ischemic stroke, Etiology