ISSN 1671-5411 CN 11-5329/R
Volume 20 Issue 1
Jan.  2023
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Please cite this article as: Kiradoh SA, Craven TE, Rangel MO, Nosow LM, Zarrinkhoo E, Menon S, Chevli PA, Islam TM, Thazhatuveetil-Kunhahamed LA. Predicting short-term adverse outcomes in the geriatric population presenting with syncope: a comparison of existing syncope rules and beyond. J Geriatr Cardiol 2023; 20(1): 11−22. DOI: 10.26599/1671-5411.2023.01.008
Citation: Please cite this article as: Kiradoh SA, Craven TE, Rangel MO, Nosow LM, Zarrinkhoo E, Menon S, Chevli PA, Islam TM, Thazhatuveetil-Kunhahamed LA. Predicting short-term adverse outcomes in the geriatric population presenting with syncope: a comparison of existing syncope rules and beyond. J Geriatr Cardiol 2023; 20(1): 11−22. DOI: 10.26599/1671-5411.2023.01.008

Predicting short-term adverse outcomes in the geriatric population presenting with syncope: a comparison of existing syncope rules and beyond

doi: 10.26599/1671-5411.2023.01.008
More Information
  •  OBJECTIVES  Syncope at age 65+ is associated with increased mortality, irrespective of cause. Syncope rules were designed to aid in risk-stratification but were only validated in the general adult population. Our objective was to determine if they can be applied to a geriatric population in predicting short-term adverse outcomes.  METHODS  In this single-center retrospective study, we evaluated 350 patients aged 65+ presenting with syncope. Exclusion criteria included confirmed non-syncope, active medical condition, drug or alcohol-related syncope. Patients were stratified into high or low risk based on Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study (EGSYS), San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR), and Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department (ROSE). Composite adverse outcomes at 48-hour and 30-day included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), return emergency department visit, hospitalization, or medical intervention. We assessed each score's ability to predict the outcomes using logistic-regression and compared performances using receiver-operator curves. Multivariate analyses were performed to study the associations between recorded parameters and outcomes.  RESULTS CSRS outperformed with AUC of 0.732 (95% CI: 0.653-0.812) and 0.749 (95% CI: 0.688-0.809) for 48-h and 30-day outcomes, respectively. Sensitivities for CSRS, EGSYS, SFSR, and ROSE for 48-hour outcomes were 48%, 65%, 42% and 19%; and for 30-day outcomes were 72%, 65%, 30% and 55%, respectively. Atrial fibrillation/flutter on EKG, congestive heart failure, antiarrhythmics, systolic blood-pressure < 90 at triage, and associated chest pain highly correlated with 48-h outcomes. An EKG abnormality, heart disease history, severe pulmonary hypertension, BNP > 300, vasovagal predisposition, and antidepressants highly correlated with 30-day outcomes.  CONCLUSIONS  Performance and accuracy of four prominent syncope rules were suboptimal in identifying high-risk geriatric patients with short-term adverse outcomes. We identified some significant clinical and laboratory information that may play a role in predicting short-term adverse events in a geriatric cohort.
  • loading
  • [1]
    Anand V, Benditt G, Adkisson O, et al. Trends of hospitalizations for syncope/collapse in the United States from 2004 to 2013–An analysis of national inpatient sample. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2018; 26: 916−922.
    [2]
    Ungar A, Galizia G, Morrione A, et al. Two-year morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with syncope. Age Ageing 2011; 40: 696−702. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afr109
    [3]
    Wong W. Complexity of Syncope in Elderly People: A Comprehensive Geriatric Approach. Hong Kong Med J 2018; 24: 182−190.
    [4]
    Forman E & Lipsitz A. Syncope in the elderly. Cardiol Clin 1997; 15: 295−311. doi: 10.1016/S0733-8651(05)70337-4
    [5]
    Serrano A, Hess P, Bellolio F, et al. Accuracy and quality of clinical decision rules for syncope in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 56: 362−373. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.013
    [6]
    D'Ascenzo F, Biondi-Zoccai G, Reed J, et al. Incidence, etiology and predictors of adverse outcomes in 43, 315 patients presenting to the Emergency Department with syncope: An international meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 167: 57−62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.083
    [7]
    Birnbaum A, Esses D, Bijur P, et al. Failure to validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an independent emergency department population. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 52: 151−159. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.12.007
    [8]
    Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Hess P, Alreesi A, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Canadian setting. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 55: 464−472. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.10.001
    [9]
    Kayayurt K, Akoglu H, Limon O, et al. Comparison of existing syncope rules and newly proposed anatolian syncope rule to predict short-term serious outcomes after syncope in the Turkish population. Int J Emerg Med 2012; 5: 17. doi: 10.1186/1865-1380-5-17
    [10]
    Ammirati F, Colivicchi F, Minardi G, et al. [Hospital management of syncope: the OESIL study (Osservatorio Epidemiologico della Sincope nel Lazio)]. G Ital Cardiol 1999; 29: 533−539.
    [11]
    Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Kwong K, Wells A, et al. Development of the canadian syncope risk score to predict serious adverse events after emergency department assessment of syncope. CMAJ 2016; 188: E289−E298. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.151469
    [12]
    Quinn J, Stiell I, McDermott D, et al. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004; 43: 224−232. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00823-0
    [13]
    Rosso D, Ungar A, Maggi R, et al. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Open Heart 2008; 94: 1620−1626.
    [14]
    Reed M, Newby D, Coull A, et al. The ROSE (Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 713−721. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.09.049
    [15]
    Safari S, Baratloo A, Hashemi B, et al. Comparison of different risk stratification systems in predicting short-term serious outcome of syncope patients. J Res Med Sci 2016; 21: 57. doi: 10.4103/1735-1995.187305
    [16]
    Costantino G, Casazza G, Reed M, et al. Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Am J Med 2014; 127: 1126e13−1126e25. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022
    [17]
    Costantino G, Perego F, Dipaola F, et al. Short- and long-term prognosis of syncope, risk factors, and role of hospital admission: results from the STePS (Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 276−283. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.059
    [18]
    Probst A, Gibson T, Weiss E, et al. Risk Stratification of Older Adults Who Present to the Emergency Department With Syncope: The FAINT Score. Ann Emerg Med 2020; 75: 147−158. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.08.429
    [19]
    Quinn J, Mcdermott D, Stiell I, et al. Prospective Validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to Predict Patients with Serious Outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 47: 448−454. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.11.019
    [20]
    Sun C, Mangione M, Merchant G, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 49: 420−427. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.11.012
    [21]
    De Lavallaz D, Badertscher P, Nestelberger T, et al. Prospective validation of prognostic and diagnostic syncope scores in the emergency department. Int J Cardiol 2018; 269: 114−121. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.06.088
    [22]
    Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Sivilotti L, Sage L, et al. Multicenter emergency department validation of the Canadian syncope risk score. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180: 737−744. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0288
    [23]
    Probst A, Kanzaria K, Gbedemah M, et al. National trends in resource utilization associated with ED visits for syncope. Am J Emerg Med 2015; 33: 998−1001. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.030
    [24]
    Anderson S, Thombley R, Dudley A, et al. Trends in hospitalization, readmission, and diagnostic testing of patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2018; 72: 523−532. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.08.430
    [25]
    Sun C, Emond A, Camargo A Jr, et al. Characteristics and admission patterns of patients presenting with syncope to U. S. emergency departments, 1992-2000. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 1029−1034.
    [26]
    Solbiati M, Talerico G, Villa P, et al. Multicentre external validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score to predict adverse events and comparison with clinical judgement. Emerg Med J 2021; 38: 701−706. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210579
    [27]
    McGoon D & Miller P. REVEAL: A contemporary US pulmonary arterial hypertension registry. Eur Respir Rev 2012; 21: 8−18. doi: 10.1183/09059180.00008211
    [28]
    Chang Y, Duval S, Badesch B, et al. Mortality in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in the modern era: Early insights from the pulmonary hypertension association registry. J AM Heart Assoc 2022; 11: 1−46.
    [29]
    Whooley A & Wong M. Depression and cardiovascular disorders. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2013; 9: 327−354. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185526
    [30]
    Carney M, Rich W, Freedland E, et al. Major depressive disorder predicts cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosom Med 1988; 50: 627−633. doi: 10.1097/00006842-198811000-00009
    [31]
    Briggs R, Carey D, McNicholas T, et al. The association between antidepressant use and orthostatic hypotension in older people: a matched cohort study. J Am Soc Hypertens 2018; 12: 597−604. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2018.06.002
    [32]
    Press Y, Punchik B, Freud T. Orthostatic hypotension and drug therapy in patients at an outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment unit. J Hypertens 2016; 34: 351−358. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000781
    [33]
    Nezafati H, Vojdanparast M, Nezafati P. Antidepressants and cardiovascular adverse events: A narrative review. ARYA Atheroscler 2015; 11: 295−304.
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)  / Tables(7)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (126) PDF downloads(47) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return