Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background/Objectives: Posterior circulation stroke (PCS) poses a diagnostic challenge due to the diverse and subtle clinical manifestations. While the FAST (Face, Arms, Speech, Time) mnemonic has proven effective in identifying anterior circulation stroke, its sensitivity to posterior events is less clear. Recently, the addition of Balance and Eyes to the mnemonic has been proposed as a more comprehensive tool for stroke recognition. Despite this, evidence directly comparing the effectiveness of BE-FAST and FAST in identifying PCS remains limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on stroke calls at a comprehensive stroke centre, Sydney, Australia. BE-FAST symptoms first assessed at an emergency department triage were recorded, along with automated acute computerised tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging findings. Haemorrhagic strokes were excluded from analysis. An ischaemic stroke diagnosis was confirmed 48–72 h later with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain. The performance of 1. BE-FAST and FAST and 2. BE-FAST and CTP in the hyperacute detection of posterior circulation ischaemic stroke was compared. Results: Out of 164 identified ischaemic infarcts confirmed on MRIs, 46 were PCS. Of these, 27 were FAST-positive, while 45 were BE-FAST-positive. Overall, BE-FAST demonstrated a higher sensitivity compared to FAST in identifying PCS (97.8 vs. 58.7) but suffered from a lower specificity (10.0 vs. 39.8). Notably, 39.1% (n = 18) of patients with PCS would have been missed if only FAST were used. Furthermore, of the 26 PCS negative on CTP, 25 were BE-FAST-positive, and 14 were FAST-positive. Conclusions: The incorporation of Balance and Eye assessments into the FAST protocol improves PCS detection, although may yield more false positives.
Tanglay et al. (Thu,) studied this question.