Management of syncope in the Emergency Department: a European prospective cohort study (SEED)
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print-electronic
Document type Observational Study, Journal Article
PubMed
38015745
DOI
10.1097/mej.0000000000001101
PII: 00063110-202404000-00009
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Cohort Studies MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Syncope * diagnosis epidemiology therapy MeSH
- Emergency Service, Hospital * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Observational Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Canada MeSH
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: In 2018, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) produced syncope guidelines that for the first-time incorporated Emergency Department (ED) management. However, very little is known about the characteristics and management of this patient group across Europe. OBJECTIVES: To examine the prevalence, clinical presentation, assessment, investigation (ECG and laboratory testing), management and ESC and Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) categories of adult European ED patients presenting with transient loss of consciousness (TLOC, undifferentiated or suspected syncope). DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) presenting to European EDs with TLOC, either undifferentiated or thought to be of syncopal origin. MAIN RESULTS: Between 00:01 Monday, September 12th to 23:59 Sunday 25 September 2022, 952 patients presenting to 41 EDs in 14 European countries were enrolled from 98 301 ED presentations (n = 40 sites). Mean age (SD) was 60.7 (21.7) years and 487 participants were male (51.2%). In total, 379 (39.8%) were admitted to hospital and 573 (60.2%) were discharged. 271 (28.5%) were admitted to an observation unit first with 143 (52.8%) of these being admitted from this. 717 (75.3%) participants were high-risk according to ESC guidelines (and not suitable for discharge from ED) and 235 (24.7%) were low risk. Admission rate increased with increasing ESC high-risk factors; 1 ESC high-risk factor; n = 259 (27.2%, admission rate=34.7%), 2; 189 (19.9%; 38.6%), 3; 106 (11.1%, 54.7%, 4; 62 (6.5%, 60.4%), 5; 48 (5.0%, 67.9%, 6+; 53 (5.6%, 67.9%). Furthermore, 660 (69.3%), 250 (26.3%), 34 (3.5%) and 8 (0.8%) participants had a low, medium, high, and very high CSRS respectively with respective admission rates of 31.4%, 56.0%, 76.5% and 75.0%. Admission rates (19.3-88.9%), use of an observation/decision unit (0-100%), and percentage high-risk (64.8-88.9%) varies widely between countries. CONCLUSION: This European prospective cohort study reported a 1% prevalence of syncope in the ED. 4 in 10 patients are admitted to hospital although there is wide variation between country in syncope management. Three-quarters of patients have ESC high-risk characteristics with admission percentage rising with increasing ESC high-risk factors.
Attikon University Hospital Athens Greece
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Regional de Málaga Malaga Spain
Department of Emergency Medicine Gazi University Faculty of Medicine Ankara Turkey
Emergency Department of the Medical University of Vienna Austria
Emergency Department Regionshospitalet Randers Denmark
Emergency Medicine Department CHU Tours Tours University Tours France
Emergency Medicine Research Group Edinburgh Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
European Society for Emergency Medicine Antwerp Belgium
General Hospital Health Centre Zaječar Serbia
Hospital Clínic IDIBAPS University of Barcelona Barcelona Catalonia Spain
Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla SCS Santander
Mater Dei Hospital Msida Malta
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital Perugia Italy
Semmelweis University ED Budapest Hungary
St Vincents University Healthcare Group Dublin Ireland
University Hospital Centre Mother Teresa of Tirana Tirana Albania
University Hospital Hradec Králové Czech Republic
University of Edinburgh Medical School Edinburgh UK
University of Medicine and Pharmacy Grigore T Popa Iasi Romania
See more in PubMed
Brignole M, Moya A, Deharo J-C, de Lange F, Elliott P, Fedorowski A, et al. 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope. Eur Heart J 2018; 39:1883–1948.
Kenny R, Bhangu J, King-Kallimanis B. Epidemioloy of syncope/collapse in younger and older western patient populations. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2013; 55:357.
Casagranda I, Brignole M, Cencetti S, Cervellin G, Costantino G, Furlan R, et al. Management of transient loss of consciousness of suspected syncopal cause, after the initial evaluation in the emergency department. Emergen Care J 2016; 12: 1–3.
Reed MJ, Newby DE, Coull AJ, Prescott RJ, Jacques KG, Gray AJ. The ROSE (risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55:713–721.
Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, Guido V, Imperoli G, Santini M; OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. 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; 24:811–819.
Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, Sellers KL, Kohn MA, Wells GA. Derivation of the San Francisco syncope rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004; 43:224–232.
Quinn J, McDermott D, Stiell I, Kohn MA, Wells GA. Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 47:448–454.
Costantino G, Perego F, Dipaola F, Borella M, Galli A, Cantoni G, et al.; STePS Investigators. 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.
Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Kwong K, Wells GA, Sivilotti MLA, Mukarram M, Rowe BH, 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.
Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Sivilotti MLA, Le Sage N, Yan JW, Huang P, Hegdekar M, et al. Multicenter Emergency Department Validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180:737–744.
Costantino G, Casazza G, Reed MJ, Bossi I, Sun BC, Del Rosso A, et al. Syncope risk stratification tools versus clinical judgement: an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Am J Med 2014; 127:1126.e13–1126.e25.
Dan GA, Scherr D, Jubele K, Farkowski MM, Iliodromitis K, Conte G, et al. Contemporary management of patients with syncope in clinical practice: an EHRA physician-based survey. Europace 2020; 22:980–987.
Thiruganasambandamoorthy V. Canadian Syncope Risk Score Calculator. https://teamvenk.com/csrs . [Accessed 24 July 2023]
Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, Blanc JJ, Brignole M, Dahm JB, et al.; Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope. European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Failure Association (HFA), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) For the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009; 30:2631–2671.
EUSEM. Research Network. https://eusem.org/sections-and-committees/committees/research-committee/research-network . [Accessed 9 June 2023]
ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT05571254