Cited by 13Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersEmergency and Acute Care StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Derivation of a risk scale and quantification of risk factors for serious adverse events in adult emergency department syncope patients

Open access
Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Venkatesh, Wells, George A., Hess, Erik P., Turko, Ekaterina, Perry, Jeffrey J., Stiell, Ian G.·2014·CJEM

Abstract

Background: Determining the appropriate disposition of emergency department (ED) syncope patients is challenging. Previously developed decision tools have poor diagnostic test characteristics and methodological flaws in their derivation that preclude their use. We sought to develop a scale to risk-stratify adult ED syncope patients at risk for serious adverse events (SAEs) within 30 days. Methods: We conducted a medical record review to include syncope patients age ≥ 16 years and excluded patients with ongoing altered mental status, alcohol or illicit drug use, seizure, head injury leading to loss of consciousness, or severe trauma requiring admission. We collected 105 predictor variables (demographics, event characteristics, comorbidities, medications, vital signs, clinical examination findings, emergency medical services and ED electrocardiogram/ monitor characteristics, investigations, and disposition variables) and information on the occurrence of predefined SAEs. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: Among 505 enrolled patient visits, 49 (9.7%) suffered an SAE. Predictors of SAE and their resulting point scores were as follows: age ≥ 75 years (1), shortness of breath (2), lowest ED systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg (2), Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria present (2), and blood urea nitrogen > 15 mmol/L (3). The final score calculated by addition of the individual scores for each variable (range 0–10) was found to accurately stratify patients into low risk (score < 1, 0% SAE risk), moderate risk (score 1, 3.7% SAE risk), or high risk (score > 1, ≥ 10% SAE risk). Conclusion: We derived a risk scale that accurately predicts SAEs within 30 days in ED syncope patients. If validated, this will be a potentially useful clinical decision tool for emergency physicians, may allow judicious use of health care resources, and may improve patient care and safety.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2310/8000.2013.131093

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009;30:2631-71. [Epub 2009 Aug 27]
  2. Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, et al. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short- term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43:224-32.
  3. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Hess EP, Alreesi A, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Canadian setting. Ann Emerg Med 2010;55:464-72.
  4. Cosgriff TM, Kelly AM, Kerr D. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Australian context. CJEM 2007;9:157-61.
  5. Reed MJ, Newby DE, Coull AJ, et al. The ROSE (Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:713-21.
  6. Reed MJ, Newby DE, Coull AJ, et al. The Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department (ROSE) pilot study: a comparison of existing syncope guidelines. Emerg Med J 2007;24:270-5.
  7. Quinn J, McDermott D, Kramer N, et al. Death after emergency department visits for syncope: how common and can it be predicted? Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:585-90.
  8. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Hess EP, Turko E, et al. Outcomes in Canadian emergency department syncope patients -are we doing a good job? J Emerg Med 2013;44: 321-8.
  9. Sun BC, Derose SF, Liang LJ, et al. Predictors of 30-day serious events in older patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2009;54:769-78.e1-5.
  10. Graham ID, Stiell IG, McAuley L, et al. Potential areas for new clinical decision rules: comparison of North America and Europe [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:433.
  11. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Stiell I, Perry J. Systematic qualitative review of clinical decision rules for syncope in ED for predicting adverse outcomes [poster]. CJEM 2007;9:214.
  12. Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, et al. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J 2003;24:811-9.
  13. Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology Committee. ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to Update the 1998 Pacemaker Guidelines). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2002;13:1183-99.
  14. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Hess EP, Turko E, et al. Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria. CJEM 2012;14:248-58.
  15. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:165-71.
  16. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Wiley; 2000.
  17. Scheaffer RL, Mendenhall W, Ott L. Elementary survey sampling. Duxbury Press; 1979.
  18. Sarasin FP, Louis-Simonet M, Carballo D, et al. Prospective evaluation of patients with syncope: a population-based study. Am J Med 2001;111:177-84.
  19. Martin TP, Hanusa BH, Kapoor WN. Risk stratification of patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 1997;29:459-66.
  20. Sun BC, Hoffman JR, Mangione CM, Mower WR. Older age predicts short-term, serious events after syncope. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55:907-12.
  21. Marti-Almor J, Cladellas M, Bazan V, et al. Long-term mortality predictors in patients with chronic bifascicular block. Europace 2009;11:1201-7.
  22. Gilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:305-8.
  23. Worster A, Bledsoe RD, Cleve P, et al. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:448-51.
  24. Badcock D, Kelly AM, Kerr D, Reade T. The quality of medical record review studies in the international emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:444-7.
  25. Lowenstein SR. Medical record reviews in emergency medicine: the blessing and the curse. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:452-5.
  26. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 1985;313:793-9.
  27. Stiell IG, Wells GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medi- cine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:437-47.
  28. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277:488-94. Syncope risk scale 2014;16(2) 129 CJEM N JCMU https://doi.org/10.2310/8000.2013.131093 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thiruganasambandamoorthy, V., Wells, G. A., Hess, E. P., Turko, E., Perry, J. J., & Stiell, I. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Venkatesh
Venue
CJEM
Published
2014-03
Volume
16
Issue
02
Pages
120-130
ISSN
  • 1481-8035 (ISSN-L)
  • 1481-8043
OpenAlex
W2264378638
Cited by
13
References
6
Citations by year
2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
syncope, serious adverse events, risk stratification, risk scale, emergency department disposition, clinical decision tool, risk factors, elderly patients, hypotension, dyspnea, blood urea nitrogen, 30-day outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Alberta, Electrocardiography, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Syncope, Urban Population, Incidence, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

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