The San Francisco Syncope Rule vs physician judgment and decision making

Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Practical Approach

Syncope is a common condition encountered in the emergency department (ED), accounting for about 0.6-3% of all ED visits. Despite its high frequency, a widely accepted management strategy for patients with syncope in the ED is still missing. Since syncope can be the presenting condition of many diseases, both severe and benign, most research efforts have focused on strategies to obtain a definitive etiologic diagnosis. Nevertheless, in everyday clinical practice, a definitive diagnosis is rarely reached after the first evaluation. It is thus troublesome to aid clinicians' reasoning by simply focusing on differential diagnoses. With the current review, we would like to propose a management strategy that guides clinicians both in the identification of conditions that warrant immediate treatment and in the management of patients for whom a diagnosis is not immediately reached, differentiating those that can be safely discharged from those that should be admitted to the hospital or monitored before a final decision. We propose the mnemonic acronym RED-SOS: Recognize syncope; Exclude life-threatening conditions; Diagnose; Stratify the risk of adverse events; Observe; decide on the Setting of care. Based on this acronym, in the different sections of the review, we discuss all the elements that clinicians should consider when assessing patients with syncope.

Syncope Prediction Scores in the Emergency Department

Syncope is a common clinical presentation defined as a transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) due to cerebral hypoperfusion, characterized by a rapid onset, short duration, and spontaneous complete recovery. Different clinical decision rules (CDRs) and risk stratification scores have been developed to predict short- and long-term risks for adverse outcomes after syncope. The central theme of these prediction systems is consistent with the ESC syncope guidelines. Initial assessment according to the ESC guideline is essential until an optimal and well-validated risk score is available. The focus should be accurate risk stratification to allow prevention of adverse outcomes and optimize the use of limited healthcare resources. In this review article, we summarize and critically appraise the evidence regarding the CDRs for patients presenting with syncope.

Early standardized clinical judgement for syncope diagnosis in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of cardiac syncope remains a challenge in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the early standardized clinical judgement (ESCJ) including a standardized syncope-specific case report form (CRF) in comparison with a recommended multivariable diagnostic score.

METHODS

In a prospective international observational multicentre study, diagnostic accuracy for cardiac syncope of ESCJ by the ED physician amongst patients ≥ 40 years presenting with syncope to the ED was directly compared with that of the Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study (EGSYS) diagnostic score. Cardiac syncope was centrally adjudicated independently of the ESCJ or conducted workup by two ED specialists based on all information available up to 1-year follow-up. Secondary aims included direct comparison with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations and a Lasso regression to identify variables contributing most to ESCJ.

RESULTS

Cardiac syncope was adjudicated in 252/1494 patients (15.2%). The diagnostic accuracy of ESCJ for cardiac syncope as quantified by the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.89), and higher compared with the EGSYS diagnostic score (0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76)), hs-cTnI (0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80)) and BNP (0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.80)), all P < 0.001. Both biomarkers (alone or in combination) on top of the ESCJ significantly improved diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSION

ESCJ including a standardized syncope-specific CRF has very high diagnostic accuracy and outperforms the EGSYS score, hs-cTnI and BNP.

Regional variation in outcomes and healthcare resources utilization in, emergency department visits for syncope

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with syncope lacks standardization. We sought to assess regional variation in hospitalization rates and resource utilization of patients with syncope.

METHODS

We identified adults with syncope using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample from years 2006 to 2014. Demographics and comorbidity characteristics were compared across geographic regions in the US. Multiple regression was conducted to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

9,132,176 adults presented with syncope. Syncope in the Northeast (n = 1,831,889) accounted for 20.1% of visits; 22.6% in the Midwest (n = 2,060,940), 38.5% in the South (n = 3,527,814) and 18.7% in the West (n = 1,711,533). Mean age was 56 years with 57.7% being female. The Northeast had the highest risk-adjusted hospitalization rate (24.5%) followed by the South (18.6%, ORadj 0.58; 95% CI 0.52-0.65, p < 0.001), the Midwest (17.2%, ORadj 0.51; 95% CI 0.46-0.58, p < 0.001) and West (15.8%, ORadj 0.45; 95% CI 0.39-0.51, p < 0.001). Risk-adjusted rates of syncope hospitalizations significantly declined from 25.8% (95% CI 24.8%-26.7%) in 2006 to 11.7% (95% CI 11.0%-12.5%) in 2014 (Ptrend < 0.001). The Northeast had the lowest risk-adjusted ED (Emergency Department) service charges per visit ($3320) followed by the Midwest ($4675, IRRadj 1.41; 95% CI 1.30-1.52, p < 0.001), the West ($4814, IRRadj 1.45; 95% CI 1.31-1.60, p < 0.001) and South ($4969, IRRadj 1.50; 95% CI 1.38-1.62, p < 0.001). Service charges increased from $3047/visit (95% CI $2912-$3182) in 2006 to $6267/visit (95% CI $5947-$6586) in 2014 (Ptrend < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant regional variability in hospitalization rates and ED service charges exist among patients with syncope. Standardizing practices may be needed to reduce variability.

External validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score for patients presenting with undifferentiated syncope to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To validate the accuracy and safety of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) for patients presenting with syncope.

METHODS

Single centre prospective observational study in Brisbane, Australia. Adults presenting to the ED with syncope within the last 24 h were recruited after applying exclusion criteria. Study was conducted over 1 year, from March 2018 to March 2019. Thirty-day serious adverse events (SAE) were reported based on the original derivation study and standardised outcome reporting for syncope. Individual patient CSRS was calculated and correlated with 30-day SAE and disposition status from ED.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-three patients were recruited to the study. Average age was 55.6 years (SD 22.7 years), 37.1% being male with a 39.9% admission rate. Thirty-day SAE occurred in seven patients (2.5%) and no recorded deaths. The CSRS performed with a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.3-94.9%), specificity 72.8% (95% CI 67.1-77.9%) for a threshold score of 1 or higher.

CONCLUSION

Syncope patients in our study were predominantly very low to low risk (72%). The prevalence of 30-day SAE was low, majority occurring following hospital discharge. Sensitivity estimates for CSRS was lower than the derivation study but lacked robustness with wide CIs because of a small sample size and number of events observed. However, the CSRS did not miss any clinically relevant outcomes in low risk patients making it potentially useful in aiding their disposition. Larger validation studies in Australia are encouraged to further test the diagnostic accuracy of the CSRS.

Multivariable risk scores for predicting short-term outcomes for emergency department patients with unexplained syncope: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED) patients with unexplained syncope are at risk of experiencing an adverse event within 30 days. Our objective was to systematically review the accuracy of multivariate risk stratification scores for identifying adult syncope patients at high and low risk of an adverse event over the next 30 days.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) from database creation until May 2020. We sought studies evaluating prediction scores of adults presenting to an ED with syncope. We included studies that followed patients for up to 30 days to identify adverse events such as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiac surgery. We only included studies with a blinded comparison between baseline clinical features and adverse events. We calculated likelihood ratios and confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We screened 13,788 abstracts. We included 17 studies evaluating nine risk stratification scores on 24,234 patient visits, where 7.5% (95% CI = 5.3% to 10%) experienced an adverse event. A Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) of 4 or more was associated with a high likelihood of an adverse event (LR_score≥4  = 11, 95% CI = 8.9 to 14). A CSRS of 0 or less (LR_score≤0  = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.20) was associated with a low likelihood of an adverse event. Other risk scores were not validated on an independent sample, had low positive likelihood ratios for identifying patients at high risk, or had high negative likelihood ratios for identifying patients at low risk.

CONCLUSION

Many risk stratification scores are not validated or not sufficiently accurate for clinical use. The CSRS is an accurate validated prediction score for ED patients with unexplained syncope. Its impact on clinical decision making, admission rates, cost, or outcomes of care is not known.

Association Between US Physician Malpractice Claims Rates and Hospital Admission Rates Among Patients With Lower-Risk Syncope

IMPORTANCE

The US Government Accountability Office has changed its estimate of the annual costs of defensive medicine, largely because it has been difficult to objectively measure its impact. Evaluating the association of malpractice claims rates with hospital admission rates and the costs of admitting patients with low-risk conditions would help to document the impact of defensive medicine. Although syncope is a concerning symptom, most patients with syncope have a low risk of adverse outcomes. However, many low-risk patients are still admitted to the hospital, with associated costs of more than $2.5 billion per year in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether hospital admission rates after emergency department visits among patients with lower-risk syncope are associated with state-level variations in malpractice claims rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study of emergency department visits among patients with lower-risk syncope used deidentified data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum). Lower-risk syncope visits were defined as those with a primary diagnosis of syncope and collapse based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 780.2 or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code R55 that did not include another major diagnostic code for a condition requiring hospital admission (such as heart disease, cancer, or medical shock) or an inpatient hospital stay of more than 3 days. These data were linked to publicly available data from the National Practitioner Data Bank pertaining to physician malpractice claims between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. The 2 data sets were linked at the state-year level. Data were analyzed from October 2, 2019, to September 12, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association between the rate of hospital admission after emergency department visits among patients with lower-risk syncope and the rate of physician malpractice claims was assessed at the state-year level using a state-level fixed-effects model. Standardized costs obtained from the Clinformatics Data Mart database were adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2017 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

Among 40 482 813 emergency department visits between 2008 and 2017, 519 724 visits (1.3%) were associated with syncope. Of those, 234 750 visits (45.2%) met the criteria for lower-risk syncope. The mean (SD) age of patients in the lower-risk cohort was 71.8 (13.5) years; 141 050 patients (60.1%) were female, and 44 115 patients (18.8%) were admitted to the hospital, representing an extra cost of $6542 per admission. The mean rate of physician malpractice claims varied from 0.27 claims per 100 000 people to 8.63 claims per 100 000 people across states and across years within states. A state-level fixed-effects regression model indicated that, for every 1 in 100 000-person increase in the physician malpractice claims rate, there was an absolute increase of 6.70% (95% CI, 4.65%-8.75%) or a relative increase of 35.6% in the hospital admission rate, which represented an additional $102 million in costs associated with this lower-risk cohort.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, increases in physician malpractice claims rates were associated with increases in hospital admission rates and substantial health care costs for patients with lower-risk syncope, and these increases are likely associated with the practice of defensive medicine.

Diagnostic Performance of Emergency Physician Gestalt for Predicting Acute Appendicitis in Patients Age 5 to 20 Years

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric appendicitis remains a challenging diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Available risk prediction algorithms may contribute to excessive ED imaging studies. Incorporation of physician gestalt assessment could help refine predictive tools and improve diagnostic imaging decisions.

METHODS

This study was a subanalysis of a parent study that prospectively enrolled patients ages 5 to 20.9 years with a chief complaint of abdominal pain presenting to 11 community EDs within an integrated delivery system between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018. Prior to diagnostic imaging, attending emergency physicians enrolled patients with ≤5 days of right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain using a Web-based application embedded in the electronic health record. Predicted risk (gestalt) of acute appendicitis was prospectively entered using a sliding scale from 1% to 100%. As a planned secondary analysis, we assessed the performance of gestalt via c-statistics of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; tested associations between gestalt performance and patient, physician, and facility characteristics; and examined clinical characteristics affecting gestalt estimates.

RESULTS

Of 3,426 patients, 334 (9.8%) had confirmed appendicitis. Physician gestalt had excellent ROC curve characteristics (c-statistic = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.81 to 0.85), performing particularly well in the low-risk strata (appendicitis rate = 1.1% in gestalt 1%-10% range, negative predictive value of 98.9% for appendicitis diagnosis). Physicians with ≥5 years since medical school graduation demonstrated improved gestalt performance over those with less experience (p = 0.007). All clinical characteristics tested, except pain <24 hours, were significantly associated with physician gestalt value (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Physician gestalt for acute appendicitis diagnosis performed well, especially in low-risk patients and when employed by experienced physicians.

Risk Stratification of Older Adults Who Present to the Emergency Department With Syncope: The FAINT Score

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Older adults with syncope are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). We seek to derive a novel risk-stratification tool to predict 30-day serious cardiac outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational study of older adults (≥60 years) with unexplained syncope or near syncope who presented to 11 EDs in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. We collected clinical and laboratory data on all patients. Our primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality or serious cardiac outcome.

RESULTS

We enrolled 3,177 older adults with unexplained syncope or near syncope between April 2013 and September 2016. Mean age was 73 years (SD 9.0 years). The incidence of the primary outcome was 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9% to 6.5%). Using Bayesian logistic regression, we derived the FAINT score: history of heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, initial abnormal ECG result, elevated pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T. A FAINT score of 0 versus greater than or equal to 1 had sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI 92.9% to 98.8%) and specificity 22.2% (95% CI 20.7% to 23.8%), respectively. The FAINT score tended to be more accurate than unstructured physician judgment: area under the curve 0.704 (95% CI 0.669 to 0.739) versus 0.630 (95% CI 0.589 to 0.670).

CONCLUSION

Among older adults with syncope or near syncope of potential cardiac cause, a FAINT score of zero had a reasonably high sensitivity for excluding death and serious cardiac outcomes at 30 days. If externally validated, this tool could improve resource use for this common condition.

Analysis of Temporal and Causal Relationship Between Syncope and 30-Day Events in a Cohort of Emergency Department Patients to Identify the True Rate of Short-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There are a limited number of studies on the short-term prognosis of syncopal patients, and those available are heterogeneous and often have considered events without a clear relationship with the syncopal episode as serious outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of short-term true outcomes of a syncopal episode, only considering those occurring after a reasonable period of time, with a plausible causal relationship with index syncope as well as syncopal recurrences causing major trauma.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational study, we assessed all patients managed in the emergency department (ED) during a 6-month period, with 30 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 982 consecutive syncopal patients. We observed short-term serious events, in a broad sense, in 154 patients (15.7%), the most frequent being dysrhythmias (20.8%), cerebrovascular accidents (18.2%), major traumatic injuries (16.2%), death (13%), and myocardial infarction (9.7%). Most of these events (63.6%) could be identified within 72 h, mainly in the ED. Only 19 patients (2.2% of the sample), experienced a true short-term outcome (7 deaths, 1 myocardial infarction, 9 dysrhythmias, 1 major bleeding event, and 1 traumatic syncopal recurrence).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of short-term true outcomes of syncope is extremely low. Distinguishing true outcomes from other events has a crucial significance for understanding the real prognostic role of syncope and for planning ED management. Once patients with syncope as a direct consequence of an acute disease needing admission by itself are excluded, most patients with unexplained syncope could be safely discharged after primary evaluation and brief ED monitoring.

Syncope: current knowledge, uncertainties and strategies for management optimisation in the emergency department

Admission rates and expenditures for syncope remain high. This unsatisfactory management could be due to several factors, including lack of evidence-based strategy, poor accuracy of clinical decision rules, difficulty in disseminating guidelines, as well as uncertainties concerning management of intermediate-risk patients and role of observation protocols and syncope units. To optimise management, it has been proposed to adopt a pragmatic, symptoms-based definition of syncope and a classification related to the underlying mechanism rather than suspected aetiology. It has also been emphasised the importance of identifying patients at intermediate risk as they can be safely discharged after an intensive emergency department evaluation. A further improvement might result from a research implementation to validate the role of observation protocols and to select patients amenable to be sent to outpatient syncope units. Finally, future studies on prognostic significance of syncope should be performed with a more careful selection of outcomes and a greater uniformity.

Structured Clinical Decision Aids Are Seldom Compared With Subjective Physician Judgment, and Are Seldom Superior

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine how often studies that evaluate the performance of an aid for decisionmaking, be it a simple laboratory or imaging test or a complex multielement decision instrument, compare the aid's performance to independent, unaided physician judgment.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of all Original Research and Brief Research Report articles in Annals of Emergency Medicine from 1998 to 2015. We included all articles that evaluated the performance of an aid for decisionmaking in assisting a physician with a decision about testing, treatment, diagnosis, or disposition. Two authors independently characterized the intent and purpose of each aid for decisionmaking, determined whether each study had a comparison to unaided physician judgment within the article or in a separate article, and recorded the result of that comparison.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-one (8.3%) of 2,060 research articles studied the performance characteristics of an aid for decisionmaking, 48 of which were formal clinical decision instruments. Forty of the 171 studies retrospectively analyzed existing databases and therefore could not assess physician judgment. Investigators compared the aid for decisionmaking to physician judgment in 11% (15/131) of the prospective studies, including 15% (6/41) of studies that evaluated a formal clinical decision instrument. For 9 articles that had no comparison to physician judgment, we found 6 unique external publications that compared that aid to physician clinical judgment. The decision aid was superior to clinical judgment in 2 of the 21 studies that contained a comparison.

CONCLUSION

Physician judgment is infrequently assessed when the performance of an aid for decisionmaking is evaluated, and, when reported, the decision aid seldom outperformed physician judgment.

Design and rationale for the Acute Congestive Heart Failure Urgent Care Evaluation: The ACUTE Study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading reasons for emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization. However, externally validated risk algorithms for acute prognostication of heart failure patients are not available. Thus, many low-risk patients are hospitalized and some high-risk patients are discharged home, which, in some cases, may lead to death.

OBJECTIVES

The first objective of the ACUTE study is to perform a prospective validation of the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG), which is a risk score derived to predict 7-day mortality in the ED setting. The second objective is to independently validate the 30-day model extension of the risk score (EHMRG30-ST) in the same cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with HF presenting to the ED will be recruited with a waiver of informed consent as a minimal risk study. The ED physician will calculate the EHMRG 7-day risk score, but treatment decisions will not be influenced by the predictive models. Follow-up will be obtained using probabilistic linkage with the Registered Persons Database of vital statistics, whereby deaths will be ascertained. We will examine mortality rates according to EHMRG and EHMRG30-ST algorithms. We will also compare physician-judged risk estimates, based on clinical judgment alone, with the EHMRG score.

CONCLUSION

The ACUTE study will determine if a retrospectively derived algorithm for simultaneous estimation of 7-day and 30-day mortality risk can accurately identify low- and high-risk patients with acute HF and improve upon physician-judged risk estimation.

Simple risk stratification score for prognosis of syncope

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to describe a new simple score to predict the occurrence of severe adverse events in patients admitted for syncope to a tertiary cardiology referral center.

METHODS

Three hundred ninety-three subjects with emergency department visits for syncope were identified and followed prospectively. The primary endpoint was death or unplanned hospital admission after the syncopal episode. The score consisted of sum of the following: previous syncope (2 points), an abnormal electrocardiogram (3 points), and history of heart disease (4 points). The accuracy of our score was compared to other scores available in the literature.

RESULTS

Of the 393 subjects, 87 were diagnosed with syncope secondary to structural or electrical heart disease and 306 with noncardiac syncope. The primary endpoint occurred in 202 cases, including death occurring in 25 patients during the 12-month follow-up. The 30-day event rate for the primary endpoint was 26.5 %. The c-statistic for the new score was 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71-0.80) similar to other scores when applied to our sample. Patients with a score of 3 out of 9 had a hazard ratio of 3.46 (95 % CI 1.22-6.11) for death during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In the study population, the new syncope score detected patients with an increased risk of death after discharge from a syncopal event. Our score predicted adverse events comparably to other scores reported in the literature. It has the advantage of being simple and easily obtained from the history and an inexpensive noninvasive test-the ECG.

Utility of brain natriuretic peptide assay as a predictor of short term outcomes in patients presenting with syncope to the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Syncope is a common condition that accounts for 3% of emergency department (ED) visits and 1-6% of hospital admissions. Current admissions practices result in marginal diagnostic and therapeutic benefit and consume healthcare resources.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study examined the use of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) test as a predictor of short term serious outcome in 159 patients who presented to ED with syncope between August 2012 and August 2013 in two tertiary teaching medical centers.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients (36%) had serious outcomes within 1 month, 21 of them were in the low BNP group and 20 were in the high BNP group. There was a significantly higher incidence of serious outcomes, myocardial infarction (MI), and life-threatening arrhythmias in the high BNP group. Patients with BNP >250 has an 8.844 fold increase risk of serious outcomes [odds ratio (OR) 8.844, 95% CI: (3.281 to 23.8), P<0.001], a 14.8-fold increase risk of MI [OR =14.8, 95% CI: (1.57 to 139), P=0.011], and a 4.46-fold increase risk life threatening arrhythmia [OR =4.46, 95% CI: (1.15-18.8), P=0.034]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in one month mortality, major bleeding, major cardiac procedures or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results further validates the ROSE rule and the utility of BNP in risk stratification of syncope patients. This study showed that measuring BNP and adding ROSE rule to the standard evaluation of syncope can sufficiently predict short-term serious outcomes for patients presenting to ED with syncope.

Artificial Neural Networks and risk stratification models in Emergency Departments: The policy maker's perspective

The primary goal of Emergency Department (ED) physicians is to discriminate between individuals at low risk, who can be safely discharged, and patients at high risk, who require prompt hospitalization. The problem of correctly classifying patients is an issue involving not only clinical but also managerial aspects, since reducing the rate of admission of patients to EDs could dramatically cut costs. Nevertheless, a trade-off might arise due to the need to find a balance between economic interests and the health conditions of patients. This work considers patients in EDs after a syncope event and presents a comparative analysis between two models: a multivariate logistic regression model, as proposed by the scientific community to stratify the expected risk of severe outcomes in the short and long run, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), an innovative model. The analysis highlights differences in correct classification of severe outcomes at 10 days (98.30% vs. 94.07%) and 1 year (97.67% vs. 96.40%), pointing to the superiority of Neural Networks. According to the results, there is also a significant superiority of ANNs in terms of false negatives both at 10 days (3.70% vs. 5.93%) and at 1 year (2.33% vs. 10.07%). However, considering the false positives, the adoption of ANNs would cause an increase in hospital costs, highlighting the potential trade-off which policy makers might face.

Emergency department management of syncope: need for standardization and improved risk stratification

Variations in emergency department (ED) syncope management have not been well studied. The goals of this study were to assess variations in management, and emergency physicians' risk perception and disposition decision making. We conducted a prospective study of adults with syncope in six EDs in four cities over 32 months. We collected patient characteristics, ED management, disposition, physicians' prediction probabilities at index presentation and followed patients for 30 days for serious outcomes: death, myocardial infarction (MI), arrhythmia, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, significant hemorrhage, or procedural interventions. We used descriptive statistics, ROC curves, and regression analyses. We enrolled 3662 patients: mean age 54.3 years, and 12.9 % were hospitalized. Follow-up data were available for 3365 patients (91.9 %) and 345 patients (10.3 %) suffered serious outcomes: 120 (3.6 %) after ED disposition including 48 patients outside the hospital. After accounting for differences in patient case mix, the rates of ED investigations and disposition were significantly different (p < 0.0001) across the four study cities; as were the rates of 30-day serious outcomes (p < 0.0001) and serious outcomes after ED disposition (p = 0.0227). There was poor agreement between physician risk perception and both observed event rates and referral patterns (p < 0.0001). Only 76.7 % (95 % CI 68.1-83.6) of patients with serious outcomes were appropriately referred. There are large and unexplained differences in ED syncope management. Moreover, there is poor agreement between physician risk perception, disposition decision making, and serious outcomes after ED disposition. A valid risk-stratification tool might help standardize ED management and improve disposition decision making.

Syncope in Patients with Organic Heart Disease

Patients with syncope and organic heart disease remain a small but important subset of those patients who experience transient loss of consciousness. These patients require thoughtful and complete evaluation in an attempt to better understand the mechanism of syncope and its relationship to the underlying disease, and to diagnose and treat both properly. The goal is to reduce the risk of further syncope, to improve long-term outcomes with respect to arrhythmic and total mortality, and to improve patients' quality of life.

Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There have been several attempts to derive syncope prediction tools to guide clinician decision-making. However, they have not been largely adopted, possibly because of their lack of sensitivity and specificity. We sought to externally validate the existing tools and to compare them with clinical judgment, using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach.

METHODS

Electronic databases, bibliographies, and experts in the field were screened to find all prospective studies enrolling consecutive subjects presenting with syncope to the emergency department. Prediction tools and clinical judgment were applied to all patients in each dataset. Serious outcomes and death were considered separately during emergency department stay and at 10 and 30 days after presenting syncope. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated.

RESULTS

Thirteen potentially relevant papers were retrieved (11 authors). Six authors agreed to share individual patient data. In total, 3681 patients were included. Three prediction tools (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope del Lazio [OESIL], San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study [EGSYS]) could be assessed by the available datasets. None of the evaluated prediction tools performed better than clinical judgment in identifying serious outcomes during emergency department stay, and at 10 and 30 days after syncope.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the use of an individual patient data approach to reduce heterogeneity among studies, a large variability was still present. Current prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared with clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcome after syncope. Our systematic review strengthens the evidence that current prediction tools should not be strictly used in clinical practice.

Randomized clinical trial of an emergency department observation syncope protocol versus routine inpatient admission

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Older adults are frequently hospitalized from the emergency department (ED) after an episode of unexplained syncope. Current admission patterns are costly, with little evidence of benefit. We hypothesize that an ED observation syncope protocol will reduce resource use without adversely affecting patient-oriented outcomes.

METHODS

This randomized trial at 5 EDs compared an ED observation syncope protocol to inpatient admission for intermediate-risk adults (≥50 years) presenting with syncope or near syncope. Primary outcomes included inpatient admission rate and length of stay. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 6-month serious outcomes after hospital discharge, index and 30-day hospital costs, 30-day quality-of-life scores, and 30-day patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Study staff randomized 124 patients. Observation resulted in a lower inpatient admission rate (15% versus 92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] difference -88% to -66%) and shorter hospital length of stay (29 versus 47 hours; 95% CI difference -28 to -8). Serious outcome rates after hospital discharge were similar for observation versus admission at 30 days (3% versus 0%; 95% CI difference -1% to 8%) and 6 months (8% versus 10%; 95% CI difference -13% to 9%). Index hospital costs in the observation group were $629 (95% CI difference -$1,376 to -$56) lower than in the admission group. There were no differences in 30-day quality-of-life scores or in patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

An ED observation syncope protocol reduced the primary outcomes of admission rate and hospital length of stay. Analyses of secondary outcomes suggest reduction in index hospital costs, with no difference in safety events, quality of life, or patient satisfaction. Our findings suggest that an ED observation syncope protocol can be replicated and safely reduce resource use.

State of the art: emergency department observation units

Hospitals and emergency departments face the challenges of escalating healthcare costs, mismatched resource utilization, concern over avoidable admissions, and hospital and emergency department overcrowding. One approach that has been used by hospitals to address these issues is the use of emergency department observation units. Research in this setting has increased in recent years, leading to a better understanding of the role of these units and their unique benefits. These benefits have been proven for health systems as a whole and for several acute conditions including chest pain, asthma, syncope, transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, abdominal pain, and more. Benefits include a decrease in diagnostic uncertainty, lower cost and resource utilization, improved patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes that are comparable to admitted patients. As more hospitals begin to use observation units, there is a need for further education and research in how to optimize the use of emergency department observation units. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of observation units, including advancements and research in this field.

Patterns and preexisting risk factors of 30-day mortality after a primary discharge diagnosis of syncope or near syncope

OBJECTIVES

The risk of short-term mortality after an emergency department (ED) visit for syncope is poorly understood, resulting in prognostic uncertainty and frequent hospital admission. The authors determined patterns and risk factors for short-term mortality after a diagnosis of syncope or near syncope to aid in medical decision-making.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of adult members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California seen at 11 EDs from 2002 to 2006 with a primary discharge diagnosis of syncope or near syncope (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] 780.2). The outcome was 30-day mortality. Proportional hazards time-to-event regression models were used to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

There were 22,189 participants with 23,951 ED visits, resulting in 307 deaths by 30 days. A relatively lower risk of death was reached within 2 weeks for ages 18 to 59 years, but not until 3 months or more for ages 60 and older. Preexisting comorbidities associated with increased mortality included heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 14.3 in ages 18 to 59 years, HR = 3.09 in ages 60 to 79 years, HR = 2.34 in ages 80 years plus; all p < 0.001), diabetes (HR = 1.49, p = 0.002), seizure (HR = 1.65, p = 0.016), and dementia (HR = 1.41, p = 0.034). If the index visit followed one or more visits for syncope in the previous 30 days, it was associated with increased mortality (HR = 1.86, p = 0.024). Absolute risk of death at 30 days was under 0.2% in those under 60 years without heart failure and more than 2.5% across all ages in those with heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The low risk of death after an ED visit for syncope or near syncope in patients younger than 60 years old without heart failure may be helpful when deciding who to admit for inpatient evaluation. The presence of one or more comorbidities that predict death and a prior visit for syncope should be considered in clinical decisions and risk stratification tools for patients with syncope. Close clinical follow-up seems advisable in patients 60 years and older due to a prolonged risk of death.

San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict short-term serious outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The San Francisco Syncope Rule has been proposed as a clinical decision rule for risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. It has been validated across various populations and settings. We undertook a systematic review of its accuracy in predicting short-term serious outcomes.

METHODS

We identified studies by means of systematic searches in seven electronic databases from inception to January 2011. We extracted study data in duplicate and used a bivariate random-effects model to assess the predictive accuracy and test characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies with a total of 5316 patients, of whom 596 (11%) experienced a serious outcome. The prevalence of serious outcomes across the studies varied between 5% and 26%. The pooled estimate of sensitivity of the San Francisco Syncope Rule was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.93), and the pooled estimate of specificity was 0.52 (95% CI 0.43-0.62). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity (resulting in a 95% prediction interval for sensitivity of 0.55-0.98). The probability of a serious outcome given a negative score with the San Francisco Syncope Rule was 5% or lower, and the probability was 2% or lower when the rule was applied only to patients for whom no cause of syncope was identified after initial evaluation in the emergency department. The most common cause of false-negative classification for a serious outcome was cardiac arrhythmia.

INTERPRETATION

The San Francisco Syncope Rule should be applied only for patients in whom no cause of syncope is evident after initial evaluation in the emergency department. Consideration of all available electrocardiograms, as well as arrhythmia monitoring, should be included in application of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Between-study heterogeneity was likely due to inconsistent classification of arrhythmia.

Short- and long-term prognosis of syncope, risk factors, and role of hospital admission: results from the STePS (Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope) study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess short- and long-term prognosis of syncope and associated risk factors.

BACKGROUND

Syncope is a common clinical event, but our knowledge of its short-term outcome is largely incomplete. Further, it is unknown whether hospital admission might positively affect a patient's syncope prognosis.

METHODS

We screened 2,775 consecutive subjects who presented for syncope at 4 emergency departments between January and July 2004. Short- and long-term severe outcomes (i.e., death and major therapeutic procedures) and related risk factors were compared in all enrolled patients arrayed according to hospital admission or discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 676 subjects were included in the study. Forty-one subjects (6.1%) experienced severe outcomes (5 deaths, 0.7%; 36 major therapeutic procedures, 5.4%) in the 10 days after presentation. An abnormal electrocardiogram, concomitant trauma, absence of symptoms of impending syncope, and male gender were associated with short-term unfavorable outcomes. Long-term severe outcomes were 9.3% (40 deaths, 6.0%; 22 major therapeutic procedures, 3.3%), and their occurrence was correlated with an age >65 years, history of neoplasms, cerebrovascular diseases, structural heart diseases, and ventricular arrhythmias. Short-term major therapeutic procedures were more common (p < 0.05) in subjects who had been admitted to hospital (13.3%) than in discharged (1.6%), whereas mortality was similar. One-year mortality was greater (p < 0.05) in admitted (14.7%) than in discharged (1.8%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for short- and long-term adverse outcomes after syncope differed. Hospital admission favorably influenced syncope short term prognosis. Instead, 1-year mortality was unaffected by hospital admission and related to comorbidity.

Death after emergency department visits for syncope: how common and can it be predicted?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Syncope is a common condition that is usually benign but occasionally associated with death. This study evaluates the incidence of death after an emergency department (ED) visit for syncope and whether these deaths can be predicted.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted during a 45-month period. All patients were followed up 1-and-a-half years after their initial ED visit to determine whether they had died. Death certificates were independently reviewed by 2 physicians for the cause and date of death to determine whether the death was possibly related to the initial visit for syncope. Sensitivity and specificity of risk factors (defined by the San Francisco Syncope Rule) or age greater than 65 years was calculated for all-cause mortality and mortality thought possibly related to syncope.

RESULTS

There were 1418 consecutive patients with syncope during the study period, representing 1.2% of all ED visits. The all-cause death rate was 1.4% at 30 days, 4.3% at 6 months, and 7.6% at 1 year. It was believed that the death rates from causes possibly related to syncope were 2.3% and 3.8% at 6 months and 1 year. Of the 112 deaths at 1 year, 37% were cardiac related. At 6 months, the risk factors had a sensitivity of 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 79% to 95%) and specificity of 53% (95% CI 52% to 53%) for all-cause mortality and sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 90% to 100%) and specificity 52% (95% CI 52% to 53%) for predicting deaths likely or possibly related to syncope. Age greater than 65 years had similar sensitivity but much worse specificity compared with the set combined risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Deaths related to syncope after an ED visit are low, especially in the first 6 months and can usually be predicted by risk factors.

External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Australian context

OBJECTIVE

The San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) aims to identify patients with syncope who are at risk for short-term serious adverse outcomes. It has been reported to have high sensitivity and the potential to decrease admission rates. The aim of this study was to validate the SFSR in the Australasian setting.

METHODS

Our prospective, observational cohort study identified patients with syncope using emergency department (ED) databases. Data, including demographics, the presence of SFSR predictors and ED disposition, were collected either during ED stay or by explicit medical record review. Patients were followed up after 7 days for defined serious outcomes (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage or unplanned ED re-presentation). We analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. We compared the results with current physician-based clinical practice.

RESULTS

We studied 89 patients with a median age of 74 years. Of them, 42% were male and the admission rate was 39%. Ten patients (11%) suffered a serious event. The SFSR was 90% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 60%-98%) and 57% specific (95% CI 46%-67%) for predicting patients with a defined serious adverse event. The SFSR also categorized 48% of patients as "high risk." If the SFSR had been strictly applied, the admission rate would have increased by 9% and 1 serious adverse event would have been missed.

CONCLUSION

The SFSR demonstrated 90% sensitivity in this validation study. Strict application of the SFSR would have increased hospital admissions but would not have identified all adverse outcomes. In our setting, clinician judgement performed as well as the syncope rule, with a baseline admission rate of 36%.

Application of the Recent American Practice Resources for Risk Stratification System for Patients Presenting to a Japanese Emergency Department Because of Syncope

BACKGROUND

The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recently published practice guidelines and recommendations for evaluation of patients with syncope based on historical, physical, and ECG findings. The objective of the present study was to determine if risk stratification using these practice resources is valid in a series of Japanese patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 912 consecutive patients brought to our emergency department between 1988 and 1997 because of syncope were identified. Follow-up information about mortality was obtained for 707 patients by means of mailed questionnaires and from medical records, and the mortality data were analyzed by the actuarial life-table method. A total of 187 patients who fulfilled the admission criteria according to the ACP guidelines were found to have higher overall and cardiac mortality than the other 520 patients (P < 0.0001), and 153 patients who fulfilled the admission criteria according to the ACEP recommendations also had higher overall and cardiac mortality than the other 554 patients (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The recent American practice recommendations can be used for risk stratification of syncope patients in Japan. Historical, physical, and ECG findings available on presentation can be used to stratify the risk of mortality in patients brought to Japanese emergency departments because of syncope.

Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We prospectively validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule (history of congestive heart failure, Hematocrit <30%, abnormal ECG result [new changes or non-sinus rhythm], complaint of shortness of breath, and systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg during triage).

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, consecutive patients with syncope or near syncope presenting to an emergency department (ED) of a teaching hospital were identified and enrolled from July 15, 2002, to August 31, 2004. Patients with trauma, alcohol, or drug-associated loss of consciousness and definite seizures were excluded. Physicians prospectively applied the San Francisco Syncope Rule after their evaluation, and patients were followed up to determine whether they had had a predefined serious outcome within 30 days of their ED visit.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety-one consecutive visits were evaluated for syncope, representing 1.2% of all ED visits. The average age was 61 years, 54% of patients were women, and 59% of patients were admitted. Fifty-three visits (6.7%) resulted in patients having serious outcomes that were undeclared during their ED visit. The rule was 98% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 89% to 100%) and 56% specific (95% CI 52% to 60%) to predict these events. In this cohort, the San Francisco Syncope Rule classified 52% of the patients as high risk, potentially decreasing overall admissions by 7%. If the rule had been applied only to the 453 patients admitted, it might have decreased admissions by 24%.

CONCLUSION

The San Francisco Syncope Rule performed with high sensitivity and specificity in this validation cohort and is a valuable tool to help risk stratify patients. It may help with physician decisionmaking and improve the use of hospital admission for syncope.