Objectives: Despite guidelines, admission rates and expenditures for syncope remain high. This may be caused by an imprecise definition of cardiovascular disease considered at risk and an overestimation of the role of comorbidities and advanced age. In a cohort of patients with undetermined syncope, we prospectively compared the short-term prognosis of patients at intermediate risk (i.e., with stable heart diseases or comorbidities, of any age) versus those at high risk for cardiogenic syncope and identified factors associated with serious events. Secondarily, we analyzed the current management of intermediate-risk patients.Methods: In a cohort of patients with undetermined syncope, we analyzed personal data, the presence of stable heart diseases or comorbidities, destination, length of hospitalization, incidence of serious events at 30 days, and costs.Results: In a 6-month period, 347 patients (185 male and 162 female, age 72.8 years) with undetermined syncope were enrolled, 250 at intermediate risk and 97 at high risk. Intermediate-risk patients were younger, with less frequent comorbidities and with a drastically lower incidence of serious events (0.8% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001). Risk factors for cardiogenic syncope were the unique variable associated with serious events. Intermediate-risk patients were mostly admitted (62.8%) in an ordinary ward or into an emergency department observation unit; in the case of ordinary admission we observed a mean prolonged hospitalization (8.8 days), elevated costs ($270,183), and a high rate of unexplained syncope (51%).Conclusions: According to the results of this study, the authors believe that intermediate-risk patients could be safely discharged, with potentially significant costs saving. In prognostic stratification, priority is to seek risk factors for cardiogenic syncope while advanced age, stable heart diseases, or comorbidities likely lead to inappropriate hospitalization. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2016;23:941-948
The recommendations enclosed in the present document have been developed by a group of experts appointed by the Gruppo Multidisciplinare per lo Studio della Sincope (Multidisciplinary Group for the Study of
This meta-analysis aimed to establish the role of standardized emergency department (ED) observation protocols in the management of syncopal patients as an alternative to ordinary admission. A systematic electronic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials or observational studies evaluating syncopal patients managed in ED observation units. Data regarding mean length of stay, rate of etiological diagnosis, admission rate, and incidence of short-term serious outcomes were extracted. Six mostly single-center, small sized studies characterized by high heterogeneity, were included. A total of 458 patients were included with a balanced sex distribution (male 50.2%), a mean age of 60.1 years, and a considerable prevalence of heart disease (32.4%). Pooled analysis of the outcomes showed a mean stay of 28.2 hours, an etiological diagnosis rate of 67.3%, an admission rate of 18.5%, and a very low incidence of short-term serious outcomes (2.8%). Due to elevated diagnostic yield and low incidence of short-term adverse events, ED observation units-based management strategy seems ideal for patients with syncope. Nevertheless, further research is needed to identify criteria for selecting patients to be managed with this approach, define evaluation protocols, and confirm the safety of this strategy.
According to the 2018 ESC guidelines, emergency physicians shall primarily aim to identify syncopal episodes associated with an underlying acute principal disease. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess the incidence of syncope associated with acute principal diseases (APDs) and to identify predictive factors reflecting the presence of these underlying conditions. We retrospectively evaluated all patients presenting with syncope during a 6-month period to the local emergency department, collecting incidence of syncopal cases associated with APDs, personal information, clinical features, and laboratory abnormalities, which were compared between syncopal patients with or without APDs. A syncope-associated APD could be diagnosed in 346/1279 patients (27.1%). In the majority of cases, the cause was a non-cardiovascular acute condition (67%), mostly non-life-threatening such as infectious diseases (34.4%) and acute diseases with pain, fluid loss or hypotension (23.7%). Severe acute cardiovascular conditions were less frequent (4.2%). Cardiogenic syncope, no previous history of syncopal episodes, not full agreement with typical clinical features of syncope, alterations of vital parameters, and laboratory abnormalities were also found to be independently associated with syncope-associated APDs. Syncope may be frequently associated with APDs of varying severity, though mostly non-clinically threatening, thus confirming that this condition shall be considered a symptom and not a disease. Emergency physicians should hence be first engaged in troubleshooting an underlying pathology when facing patients with syncope, for timely identifying patients at higher risk of short-term adverse events and reducing inappropriate admissions and diagnostic investigations, especially in the presence of hypotensive syncope elicited by non-severe concurrent conditions.
As reported in the literature, syncope accounts for 2.3% of ED consultations and for 4.2% of total hospital admissions. A brief observation ward in the ED seems to have the necessary characteristics for managing most cases of syncope quickly (3.5 days). The final diagnosis was certain in 60%, suspected in 33% and unexplained in 7% of patients. The commonest forms of syncope were non-cardiogenic. Factors associated with cardiogenic syncope were previous syncopal events, lack of prodromal symptoms and a high OESIL risk score.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.