Syncope clinical management in the emergency department: a consensus from the first international workshop on syncope risk stratification in the emergency department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Costantino G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4872282 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Syncope clinical management in the emergency department: a consensus from the first international workshop on syncope risk stratification in the emergency department.
Costantino Giorgio G Sun Benjamin C BC Barbic Franca F Bossi Ilaria I Casazza Giovanni G Dipaola Franca F McDermott Daniel D Quinn James J Reed Matthew J MJ Sheldon Robert S RS Solbiati Monica M Thiruganasambandamoorthy Venkatesh V Beach Daniel D Bodemer Nicolai N Brignole Michele M Casagranda Ivo I Del Rosso Attilio A Duca Piergiorgio P Falavigna Greta G Grossman Shamai A SA Ippoliti Roberto R Krahn Andrew D AD Montano Nicola N Morillo Carlos A CA Olshansky Brian B Raj Satish R SR Ruwald Martin H MH Sarasin Francois P FP Shen Win-Kuang WK Stiell Ian I Ungar Andrea A Gert van Dijk J J van Dijk Nynke N Wieling Wouter W Furlan Raffaello R
European heart journal 20150804 19
Similar Datasets
Project description:There is increasing research interest in the risk stratification of emergency department (ED) syncope patients. A major barrier to comparing and synthesizing existing research is wide variation in the conduct and reporting of studies. The authors wanted to create standardized reporting guidelines for ED syncope risk-stratification research using an expert consensus process. In that pursuit, a panel of syncope researchers was convened and a literature review was performed to identify candidate reporting guideline elements. Candidate elements were grouped into four sections: eligibility criteria, outcomes, electrocardiogram (ECG) findings, and predictors. A two-round, modified Delphi consensus process was conducted using an Internet-based survey application. In the first round, candidate elements were rated on a five-point Likert scale. In the second round, panelists rerated items after receiving information about group ratings from the first round. Items that were rated by >80% of the panelists at the two highest levels of the Likert scale were included in the final guidelines. There were 24 panelists from eight countries who represented five clinical specialties. The panel identified an initial set of 183 candidate elements. After two survey rounds, the final reporting guidelines included 92 items that achieved >80% consensus. These included 10 items for study eligibility, 23 items for outcomes, nine items for ECG abnormalities, and 50 items for candidate predictors. Adherence to these guidelines should facilitate comparison of future research in this area.
| S-EPMC3376009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: While Canadian ED physicians discharge most syncope patients with no specific further follow-up, approximately 5% will suffer serious outcomes after ED discharge. The goal of this study is to prospectively identify risk factors and to derive a clinical decision tool to accurately predict those at risk for serious outcomes after ED discharge within 30 days. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a prospective cohort study at 6 Canadian EDs to include adults with syncope and exclude patients with loss of consciousness>5 minutes, mental status changes from baseline, obvious witnessed seizure, or head trauma prior to syncope. Emergency physicians will collect standardized clinical variables including historical features, physical findings, and results of immediately available tests (blood, ECG, and ED cardiac monitoring) prior to ED discharge/hospital admission. A second emergency physician will evaluate approximately 10% of study patients for interobserver agreement calculation of predictor variables. The primary outcome will be a composite serious outcome occurring within 30 days of ED discharge and includes three distinct categories: serious adverse events (death, arrhythmia); identification of serious underlying disease (structural heart disease, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, severe pulmonary hypertension, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage, myocardial infarction); or procedures to treat the cause of syncope. The secondary outcome will be any of the above serious outcomes either suspected or those occurring in the ED. A blinded Adjudication Committee will confirm all serious outcomes. Univariate analysis will be performed to compare the predictor variables in patients with and without primary outcome. Variables with p-values <0.2 and kappa values ? 0.60 will be selected for stepwise logistic regression to identify the risk factors and to develop the clinical decision tool. We will enroll 5,000 patients (with 125 positive for primary outcome) for robust identification of risk factors and clinical decision tool development. DISCUSSION: Once successfully developed, this tool will accurately risk-stratify adult syncope patients; however, validation and implementation will still be required. This program of research should lead to standardized care of syncope patients, and improve patient safety.
| S-EPMC4003802 | biostudies-other
Project description:Study objectiveOlder 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionAmong 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.
| S-EPMC6981063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperkalemia is a common electrolyte abnormality identified in the emergency department (ED) and potentially fatal. However, there is no consensus over the potassium threshold that warrants intervention or its treatment algorithm. Commonly used medications are at best temporizing measures, and the roles of binders are unclear in the emergent setting. As the prevalence of comorbid conditions altering potassium homeostasis rises, hyperkalemia becomes more common, and hence there is a need to standardize management. A panel was assembled to synthesize the available evidence and identify gaps in knowledge in hyperkalemia treatment in the ED. The panel was composed of 7 medical practitioners, including 5 physicians, a nurse, and a clinical pharmacist with collective expertise in the areas of emergency medicine, nephrology, and hospital medicine. This panel was sponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians with a goal to create a consensus document for managing acute hyperkalemia. The panel evaluated the evidence on calcium for myocyte stabilization and potassium shifting and excretion. This article summarizes information on available therapies for hyperkalemia and proposes a hyperkalemia treatment algorithm for the ED practitioner based on the currently available literature and highlights diagnostic pitfalls and evidence gaps.
| S-EPMC8485984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of existing rules (San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Canadian Syncope Risk Score [CSRS], and FAINT score) in older adults.MethodsThis is a cohort study of adults aged ≥60 years presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) with syncope or near syncope. We used original criteria for all rules except for the FAINT score, in which N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide was largely missing from the extracted data. Patients were deemed positive for each rule if classified as non-low risk. The primary outcome was the presence of 30-day serious outcome, as defined by syncope research guidelines. Sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 404 ED visits (mean age of patients, 75.5 years) were included. Of these, 44 (10.9%) had a 30-day serious outcome, and 24 (5.9%) had incomplete 30-day follow-up. SFSR was positive for 280 of 380 visits with complete follow-up. Its sensitivity and NLR for predicting 30-day serious outcomes were 86.4% (95% CI, 72.0%-94.3%) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.15), respectively. The CSRS was positive for 299 of 380 visits (sensitivity was 88.6% [95% CI, 76.4%-95.7%], and NLR was 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.17]). The modified FAI(N)T score was positive for 318 of 380 visits (sensitivity was 90.9% [95% CI, 77.4%-97.0%], and NLR was 0.53 [95% CI, 0.20-1.38]).ConclusionExisting rules are suboptimal to predict 30-day serious outcomes in older adults presenting with syncope or near syncope to the ED.
| S-EPMC9597095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveOlder 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsStudy 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.ConclusionAn 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.
| S-EPMC4019722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: In December 2019, an invasive viral outbreak, the Corona Virus Disease 19 spread to the whole world. An international cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate how healthcare workers in Emergency departments dealt with this pandemic. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 180 healthcare workers around the world during May and June of the year 2020. Results: A total of 134 HCW from 23 countries responded with a majority of Emergency physicians (36.8%). The PCR testing is available in 72.9% of the hospitals. Different architectural strategies were used to isolate suspected cases in the Emergency department (ED). Half of the institutions would not allow visitors, while the other half, restricted visiting hours and the number of visitors. Triage for suspected patients relied in 82.8% on symptoms. Almost 98% of HCW used a combination of mask, gloves, gown and face shield. Around 65% of the HCW have a tendency to discharge more patients from the ED than what they were used to. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic made a major change within the emergency departments worldwide.
| S-EPMC9098677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFrailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study.MethodsA two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors.ResultsIn Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include.ConclusionsAlthough a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10874925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveControversy remains in regard to the risk of adverse events for patients presenting with syncope compared with near-syncope. The purpose of our study is to describe the difference in outcomes between these groups in a large multicenter cohort of older emergency department (ED) patients.MethodsFrom April 28, 2013, to September 21, 2016, we conducted a prospective, observational study across 11 EDs in adults (≥60 years) with syncope or near-syncope. A standardized data extraction tool was used to collect information during their index visit and at 30-day follow-up. Our primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day death or serious clinical events. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for relevant demographic or historical variables.ResultsA total of 3,581 patients (mean age 72.8 years; 51.6% men) were enrolled in the study. There were 1,380 patients (39%) presenting with near-syncope and 2,201 (61%) presenting with syncope. Baseline characteristics revealed a greater incidence of congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, previous arrhythmia, nonwhite race, and presenting dyspnea in the near-syncope compared with syncope cohort. There were no differences in the primary outcome between the groups (near-syncope 18.7% versus syncope 18.2%). A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified no difference in 30-day serious outcomes for patients with near-syncope (odds ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.14) compared with syncope.ConclusionNear-syncope confers risk to patients similar to that of syncope for the composite outcome of 30-day death or serious clinical event.
| S-EPMC6387841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe management of patients with syncope in the emergency department (ED) is challenging because no robust risk tool available has been recommended for clinical use.ObjectiveTo validate the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) in a new cohort of patients with syncope to determine its ability to predict 30-day serious outcomes not evident during index ED evaluation.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective multicenter cohort study conducted at 9 EDs across Canada included patients 16 years and older who presented to EDs within 24 hours of syncope. Patients were enrolled from March 2014 to April 2018.Main outcomes and measuresBaseline characteristics, CSRS predictors, and 30-day adjudicated serious outcomes, including arrhythmic (arrhythmias, interventions for arrhythmia, or unknown cause of death) and nonarrhythmic (myocardial infarction, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, or hemorrhage) serious outcomes, were collected. Calibration and discrimination characteristics for CSRS validation were calculated.ResultsA total of 3819 patients were included (mean [SD] age 53.9 [22.8] years; 2088 [54.7%] female), of whom 139 (3.6%) experienced 30-day serious outcomes, including 13 patients (0.3%) who died. In the validation cohort, there were no differences between the predicted and observed risk, the calibration slope was 1.0, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93). The empirical probability of a 30-day serious outcome during validation was 3.64% (95% CI, 3.09%-4.28%) compared with the model-predicted probability of 3.17% (95% CI, 2.66%-3.77%; P = .26). The proportion of patients with 30-day serious outcomes increased from 3 of 1631 (0.3%) in the very-low-risk group to 40 of 78 (51.3%) in the very-high-risk group (Cochran-Armitage trend test P < .001). There was a similar significant increase in the serious outcome subtypes with increasing CSRS risk category. None of the very-low-risk and low-risk patients died or experienced ventricular arrhythmia. At a threshold score of -1 (2145 of 3819 patients), the CSRS sensitivity and specificity were 97.8% (95% CI, 93.8%-99.6%) and 44.3% (95% CI, 42.7%-45.9%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe CSRS was successfully validated and its use is recommended to guide ED management of patients when serious causes are not identified during index ED evaluation. Very-low-risk and low-risk patients can generally be discharged, while brief hospitalization can be considered for high-risk patients. We believe CSRS implementation has the potential to improve patient safety and health care efficiency.
| S-EPMC7091474 | biostudies-literature