The prognostic value of the components of the Glasgow Coma Scale following acute stroke.

BACKGROUND The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely used in assessing level of consciousness. The GCS verbal component may be misleading in acute stroke: a focal neurological deficit leading to dysphasia could affect the score, independently of level of consciousness. AIM To investigate the relationship, in all strokes and in dysphasic patients, between stroke outcome and total GCS (with and without the verbal score) and its components, to assess their relative values. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective analysis following prospective data collection in an acute stroke unit and follow-up. METHODS Outcomes studied were 2-week mortality and 3-month recovery (survival, subject living at home). We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to compare versions of the GCS and multivariate logistic regression to identify which subset of GCS components best predicted outcome. RESULTS Of 1517 patients with acute stroke, 1217 had complete clinical and follow-up data; 349 were dysphasic. Total GCS had greater AUC than the GCS without the verbal score, for mortality (all patients 0.78 vs. 0.76, p=0.021; dysphasics 0.72 vs. 0.71, p=0.52) and recovery (all patients 0.71 vs. 0.67, p=0.0001; dysphasics 0.74 vs. 0.70, p=0.055). Verbal and eye scores independently provided prognostic information, for each patient group and outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS The GCS contains valuable predictive information. Regardless of whether dysphasia is present, the verbal score should be assessed since it adds prognostic information to that from the eye component, and has greater value than the motor score.

[1]  S. Kendrick,et al.  The Scottish Record Linkage System. , 1993, Health bulletin.

[2]  G. Teasdale,et al.  The Description of ‘Conscious Level’: A Case for the Glasgow Coma Scale , 1982, Scottish medical journal.

[3]  G. Rowley,et al.  Reliability and accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Scale with experienced and inexperienced users , 1991, The Lancet.

[4]  B. Jennett,et al.  Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. , 1974, Lancet.

[5]  R. Knill-Jones,et al.  Observer variability in assessing impaired consciousness and coma. , 1978, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[6]  J. Bamford,et al.  Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction , 1991, The Lancet.

[7]  K. Prasad,et al.  Comparison of the Three Strategies of Verbal Scoring of the Glasgow Coma Scale in Patients with Stroke , 1998, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[8]  G. Schlaug,et al.  Comparison of Retrospective and Prospective Measurements of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale , 2000, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[9]  B. Jennett,et al.  ASPECTS OF COMA AFTER SEVERE HEAD INJURY , 1977, The Lancet.

[10]  H. Diener Multinational Randomised Controlled Trial of Lubeluzole in Acute Ischaemic Stroke , 1998, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[11]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[12]  S Vida,et al.  A computer program for non-parametric receiver operating characteristic analysis. , 1993, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[13]  D. Edwards,et al.  Does modification of the Innsbruck and the Glasgow Coma Scales improve their ability to predict functional outcome? , 1997, Archives of neurology.

[14]  John Whitehead,et al.  Glycine antagonist (gavestinel) in neuroprotection (GAIN International) in patients with acute stroke: a randomised controlled trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[15]  R. Rimel,et al.  THE GLASGOW COMA SCALE: TO SUM OR NOT TO SUM? , 1983, The Lancet.

[16]  F. Plum,et al.  Prognosis in nontraumatic coma. , 1981, Annals of internal medicine.

[17]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.