Cited by 32Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEmergency and Acute Care Studies

One-year prognosis after syncope and the failure of the ROSE decision instrument to predict one-year adverse events

Reed, Matthew J., Henderson, Sarah S., Newby, David E., Gray, Alasdair J.·2011·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective We investigate the incidence of adverse events at 1 year in the cohort of emergency department (ED) syncope patients enrolled in the original Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department (ROSE) study, the time to adverse event, and the test performance of the ROSE decision instrument to detect events at 1 year.Methods This report details the 1-year follow-up of adult syncope patients presenting to the ED who were enrolled into the ROSE study, a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study. The primary endpoint was the combination of serious outcome and all-cause death at 1 year. Serious outcome encompassed acute myocardial infarction, life-threatening arrhythmia, need for pacemaker/implantable defibrillator, pulmonary embolus, cerebrovascular accident, intracranial or subarachnoid hemorrhage, and interventional procedure or hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion. Secondary endpoints were all-cause death and cardiovascular serious outcome at 1 year.Results One thousand forty-three patients were available for analysis; 162 patients (15.5%) had a primary outcome. Twenty-eight (17%) of these were within 24 hours, 56 (35%) were within 1 week, and 78 (48%) were within 1 month. The remaining 84 (52%) outcomes occurred between months 2 and 12. At 1 year, 71 (6.8%) patients had died and 76 (7.3%) had a cardiovascular serious outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of the ROSE decision instrument for 1-year serious outcome and all-cause death were, respectively, 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.9% to 78.3%) and 71.1% (95% CI 67.9% to 74.0%); for 1-year all-cause death, 76.1% (95% CI 64.2% to 85.1%) and 67.4% (95% CI 64.3% to 70.3%); and for 1-year cardiovascular serious outcome, 75.0% (95% CI 63.5% to 83.9%) and 67.5% (95% CI 64.5% to 70.5%).Conclusion The proportion of patients with serious outcome and all-cause death 1 year after syncope is similar to that reported in recent international syncope studies. We have defined the proportion of patients with cardiovascular serious outcome at 1 year and have shown that most events occurred in the first month, with decreased frequency of events observed after that time especially marked for cardiovascular serious outcome. More than 50% of the outcomes observed, however, occurred after the first month. The ROSE decision instrument does not perform well at predicting 1-year outcome of ED syncope patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.12.021

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • None of the emergency department syncope clinical decision rules are used widely in emergency departments due to poor sensitivity and specificity reported from external validation, or due to a lack of external validation.

    “None of these rules are used widely in EDs due to poor sensitivity and specificity reported from external validation, or due to a lack of external validation. 70,78-85”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reed, M. J., Henderson, S. S., Newby, D. E., & Gray, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Reed, Matthew J.
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
250-256
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135334015
Cited by
32
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
syncope, risk stratification, one-year prognosis, adverse events, all-cause mortality, diagnostic accuracy, risk prediction model, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmias, hemorrhagic stroke, pacemaker implantation, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, pulmonary embolism, stroke
MeSH terms
Decision Support Techniques, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Syncope, Time Factors, Confidence Intervals, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review