Clinical Benefit of Hospitalization for Older Adults With Unexplained Syncope: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Application of five risk stratification tools for syncope in older adults

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of syncope in older adults places a burden on healthcare systems. We used five risk stratification tools to predict short-term adverse outcomes in older patients with syncope.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of patients with syncope (age ≥60 years) in the emergency department of an urban academic hospital. The data were evaluated using the Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department (ROSE), San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR), FAINT, Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), and Boston Syncope Criteria (BSC) tools. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value (NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios of each tool were calculated and compared for adverse events within 1 month.

RESULTS

In total, 221 patients (average age 75.6 years) were analyzed. Fifty-nine patients (26.7%) had experienced an adverse event within 1 month. For the ROSE, SFSR, FAINT, CSRS and BSC tools, sensitivities were 81.3%, 76.3%, 93.2%, 71.2%, and 94.9%, specificities were 88.3%, 87.7%, 56.8%, 71.6%, and 67.3%, and NPVs were 92.9%, 91.0%, 95.8%, 87.2%, and 97.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The five assessed tools could be useful for physicians in screening older patients with syncope for the risk of short-term adverse events, according to the patient's actual situation.

Current approach to the treatment of vasovagal syncope in adults

Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is the most common cause of transient loss of consciousness. Although not associated with mortality, it causes injuries, reduces quality of life, and is associated with anxiety and depression. The European and North American cardiac societies recently published syncope clinical practice guidelines. Most patients with VVS do well after specialist evaluation, reassurance and education. Adequate hydration, increased salt intake when not contraindicated, and careful withdrawal of diuretics and specific hypotension-inducing drugs are a reasonable initial strategy. Physical counterpressure maneuvers might be helpful but can be of limited efficacy in older patients and those with short or no prodromes. Orthostatic training lacks long term efficacy and is troubled by non-compliance. Yoga might be helpful, although the biomedical mechanism is unknown. Almost a third of VVS patients continue to faint despite these conservative measures. Metoprolol was not helpful in a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Fludrocortisone and midodrine significantly reduce syncope recurrences with tolerable side effects, when titrated to target doses. Pacing therapy with specialized sensors appears promising in carefully selected population who have not responded conservative measures. Cardioneuroablation may be helpful but has not been studied in a formal clinical trial.

Development of a Novel Emergency Department Quality Measure to Reduce Very Low-Risk Syncope Hospitalizations

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Emergency department (ED) evaluations for syncope are common, representing 1.3 million annual US visits and $2 billion in related hospitalizations. Despite evidence supporting risk stratification and outpatient management, variation in syncope hospitalization rates persist. We sought to develop a new quality measure for very low-risk adult ED patients with syncope that could be applied to administrative data.

METHODS

We developed this quality measure in 2 phases. First, we used an existing prospective, observational ED patient data set to identify a very low-risk cohort with unexplained syncope using 2 variables: age less than 50 years and no history of heart disease. We then applied this to the 2019 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) to assess its potential effect, assessing for hospital-level factors associated with hospitalization variation.

RESULTS

Of the 8,647 adult patients in the prospective cohort, 3,292 (38%) patients fulfilled these 2 criteria: age less than 50 years and no history of heart disease. Of these, 15 (0.46%) suffered serious adverse events within 30 days. In the NEDS, there were an estimated 566,031 patients meeting these 2 criteria, of whom 15,507 (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.48% to 3.00%) were hospitalized. We found substantial variation in the hospitalization rates for this very low-risk cohort, with a median rate of 1.7% (range 0% to 100%; interquartile range 0% to 3.9%). Factors associated with increased hospitalization rates included a yearly ED volume of more than 80,000 (odds ratio [OR] 3.14; 95% CI 2.02 to 4.89) and metropolitan teaching status (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.81).

CONCLUSION

In summary, our novel syncope quality measure can assess variation in low-value hospitalizations for unexplained syncope. The application of this measure could improve the value of syncope care.

Performance of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society versus European Society of Cardiology guideline criteria for hospital admission of patients with syncope

BACKGROUND

Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society (ACC/AHA/HRS) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend different strategies to avoid low-yield admissions in patients with syncope.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to directly compare the safety and efficacy of applying admission criteria of both guidelines to patients presenting with syncope to the emergency department in 2 multicenter studies.

METHODS

The international BASEL IX (BAsel Syncope EvaLuation) study (median age 71 years) and the U.S. SRS (Improving Syncope Risk Stratification in Older Adults) study (median age 72 years) were investigated. Primary endpoints were sensitivity/specificity for the adjudicated diagnosis of cardiac syncope (BASEL IX only) and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (30d-MACE).

RESULTS

Among 2560 patients in the BASEL IX and 2085 in SRS studies, ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC criteria recommended admission for a comparable number of patients in BASEL IX (27% vs 28%), but ACC/AHA/HRS criteria less often in SRS (19% vs 32%; P <.01). Recommendations were discordant in ∼25% of patients. In BASEL IX, sensitivity for cardiac syncope and 30d-MACE among patients without admission criteria was comparable for ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC criteria (64% vs 65%, P = .86; and 67% vs 71%, P = .15, respectively). In SRS, sensitivity for 30d-MACE was lower with ACC/AHA/HRS (54%) vs ESC criteria (88%; P <.001). Similarly, specificity for cardiac syncope and 30d-MACE in BASEL IX was comparable for both guidelines, but in SRS the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines showed a higher specificity for 30d-MACE than the ESC guidelines.

CONCLUSION

ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC guidelines showed disagreement regarding admission for 1 in 4 patients and had only modest sensitivity, all indicating possible opportunities for improvements.

Syncope and the aging patient: Navigating the challenges

Syncope in the elderly patient is a common presentation and the most common causes are usually non-cardiac. Older adults however are more challenging dilemmas as their presentation is complicated by co-morbidities, mainly cardiovascular and neurodegenerative disorders. Frailty and cognitive impairment add to the ambiguity of the presentation, and polypharmacy is often a major modifiable contributing factor. Vasovagal syncope is a common presentation throughout life even as we age. It has a favorable prognosis and conservative management usually suffices. Vasovagal syncope in this population may be misdiagnosed as accidental falls and is frequently associated with injury, as is carotid sinus syndrome. The initial approach to these patients entails a detailed history and physical examination including a comprehensive medication history, orthostatic vital signs, and a 12-lead electrocardiogram. Further cardiac and neuroimaging rarely helps, unless directed by specific clinical findings. Head-up tilt testing and carotid sinus massage retain their diagnostic accuracy and safety in the elderly, and implantable loop recorders provide important information in many elderly patients with unexplained falls and syncope. The starting point in management of this population with non-cardiac syncope is attempting to withdraw unnecessary vasoactive and psychotropic medications. Non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapy for syncope in the elderly has limited efficacy and safety concerns. In selected patients, pacemaker therapy might offer symptomatic relief despite lack of efficacy when vasodepression is prominent. An approach focused on primary care with targeted specialist referral seems a safe and effective strategy.

Can I Send This Syncope Patient Home From the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND

Syncope is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED). A significant minority of these patients have potentially life-threatening pathology. Reliably identifying that patients require hospital admission for further workup and intervention is imperative.

CLINICAL QUESTION

In patients who present with syncope, is there a reliable decision tool that clinicians can use to predict the risk of adverse outcome and determine who may be appropriate for discharge?

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Four articles were reviewed. The first retrospective study found no difference in mortality or adverse events in patients admitted for further evaluation rather than discharged home with primary care follow-up. The next two articles examined the derivation and validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS). After validation with an admission threshold score of -1, the sensitivity and specificity of the CSRS was 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 93.8-99.6%) and 44.3% (95% CI 42.7-45.9%), respectively. The last article looked at the derivation of the FAINT score, a recently developed score to risk stratify syncope patients. A FAINT score of ≥ 1 (any score 1 or higher should be admitted) had a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI 92.9-98.8%) and specificity 22.2% (95% CI 20.7-23.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Syncope remains a difficult chief symptom to disposition from the ED. The CSRS is modestly effective at establishing a low probability of actionable disease or need for intervention. However, CSRS might not reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The FAINT score has yet to undergo validation; however, the initial derivation study offers less diagnostic accuracy compared with the CSRS.

Benefit of hospital admission for detecting serious adverse events among emergency department patients with syncope: a propensity-score-matched analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

The benefit of hospital admission after emergency department evaluation for syncope is unclear. We sought to determine the association between hospital admission and detection of serious adverse events, and whether this varied according to the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS).

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort of patients assessed in the emergency department for syncope. We compared patients admitted to hospital and discharged patients, using propensity scores to match 1:1 for risk of a serious adverse event. The primary outcome was detection of a serious adverse event in hospital for admitted patients or within 30 days after emergency department disposition for discharged patients.

RESULTS

We included 8183 patients, of whom 743 (9.1%) were admitted; 658/743 (88.6%) were matched. Admitted patients had higher odds of detection of a serious adverse event (odds ratio [OR] 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-7.4), nonfatal arrhythmia (OR 5.1, 95% CI 2.9-8.8) and nonarrhythmic serious adverse event (OR 6.3, 95% CI 2.9-13.5). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in death (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.4-2.7) or detection of ventricular arrhythmia (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.7-6.0). Differences between admitted and discharged patients in detection of serious adverse events were greater for those with a CSRS indicating medium to high risk (p = 0.04).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with syncope were more likely to have serious adverse events identified within 30 days if they were admitted to hospital rather than discharged from the emergency department. However, the benefit of hospital admission is low for patients at low risk of a serious adverse event.

A Rational Evaluation of the Syncope Patient: Optimizing the Emergency Department Visit

Syncope accounts for up to 2% of emergency department visits and results in the hospitalization of 12–86% of patients. There is often a low diagnostic yield, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients being discharged with no clear diagnosis. We will outline a structured approach to the syncope patient in the emergency department, highlighting the evidence supporting the role of clinical judgement and the initial electrocardiogram (ECG) in making the preliminary diagnosis and in safely identifying the patients at low risk of short- and long-term adverse events or admitting the patient if likely to benefit from urgent intervention. Clinical decision tools and additional testing may aid in further stratifying patients and may guide disposition. While hospital admission does not seem to offer additional mortality benefit, the efficient utilization of outpatient testing may provide similar diagnostic yield, preventing unnecessary hospitalizations.

Impact of a specialist service in the Emergency Department on admission, length of stay and readmission of patients presenting with falls, syncope and dizziness

BACKGROUND

Up to half of patients presenting with falls, syncope or dizziness are admitted to hospital. Many are discharged without a clear diagnosis for their index episode, however, and therefore a relatively high risk of readmission.

AIM

To examine the impact of ED-FASS (Emergency Department Falls and Syncope Service) a dedicated specialist service embedded within an ED, seeing patients of all ages with falls, syncope and dizziness.

DESIGN

Pre- and post-cohort study.

METHODS

Admission rates, length of stay (LOS) and readmission at 3 months were examined for all patients presenting with a fall, syncope or dizziness from April to July 2018 (pre-ED-FASS) inclusive and compared to April to July 2019 inclusive (post-ED-FASS).

RESULTS

There was a significantly lower admission rate for patients presenting in 2019 compared to 2018 [27% (453/1676) vs. 34% (548/1620); X2 = 18.0; P < 0.001], with a 20% reduction in admissions. The mean LOS for patients admitted in 2018 was 20.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.4-24.0] days compared to 18.2 (95% CI 14.6-21.9) days in 2019 (t = 0.98; P = 0.3294). This accounts for 11 344 bed days in the 2018 study period, and 8299 bed days used after ED-FASS. There was also a significant reduction in readmission rates within 3 months of index presentation, from 21% (109/1620) to 16% (68/1676) (X2 = 4.68; P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the significant potential benefits of embedding dedicated multidisciplinary services at the hospital front door in terms of early specialist assessment and directing appropriate patients to effective ambulatory care pathways.

Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Guide for Clinicians

Syncope is a common presenting symptom to emergency departments, but its evaluation and initial management can be challenging for ED practitioners and particularly urgent in the presence of high-risk features that increase the likelihood of cardiac etiology. Even after thorough clinical evaluation, syncope may remain unexplained. In such instances, practitioners' clinical judgment and risk assessments are critical to guide further management. In this article, evidence-informed strategies are outlined to approach the diagnosis of syncope and provide an overview of syncope clinical decision rules and shared decision-making. By incorporating risk stratification and shared decision-making into syncope care, practitioners can more confidently engage patients and families in disposition decisions to organize appropriate outpatient and follow-up care, observation, or admission.

Lack of benefit from hospitalization in patients with syncope: A propensity analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Patients with syncope are frequently admitted to the hospital, but whether this improves outcome is unknown. We tested whether hospitalization reduced mortality in patients who presented to emergency departments (EDs) with syncope.

METHODS

We conducted a propensity analysis of the outcomes of patients ≥18 years old presenting to EDs with a primary diagnosis of syncope in April 2004-March 2013. The model used 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching to predicted admission using age, sex, urban residence, household income, and 14 significant comorbidities from 4 administrative databases of the province of Alberta. The primary outcome was death.

RESULTS

There were 57,417 ED patients with a primary diagnosis of syncope; 8864 were admitted, and 48,553 were discharged in <24 hours. Admitted patients were older (median 76 vs 49 years), male (53% vs 45%), rural (23% vs 18%), and had lower income (median $58,599 vs $61,422); all P < 0.001. All comorbidities were higher in admitted patients (mean Charlson scores, 1.9 vs 0.7; P < 0.001). The propensity-matched hospitalized patients had higher 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 1.0%) and 1-year mortality (14.1% vs 8.6%); both P < 0.001. Mortality in all propensity quintiles was higher in the hospitalized group (all P < 0.001). The most common causes of death in 2719 patients included chronic ischemic heart disease, 14%; lung cancer, 7.1%; acute myocardial infarction, 6.9%; stroke, 3.7%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3.6%; dementia, 2.6%; and heart failure, 2.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital admission did not reduce early or late mortality in patients who presented to the ED with syncope. Mortality is associated with comorbidities.

Shared Decision Making for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial

OBJECTIVES

Significant practice variation is seen in the management of syncope in the emergency department (ED). We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision making (SDM) tool for low-to-intermediate-risk syncope patients presenting to the ED.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled trial of adults (≥30 years) with unexplained syncope who presented to an academic ED in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. Patients were randomized, 1:1, to receive either usual care or a personalized syncope decision aid (SynDA) meant to facilitate SDM. Our primary outcome was feasibility, i.e., ability to enroll 50 patients in 24 months. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement (measured with OPTION-5), rating of care, and clinical outcomes at 30 days post-ED visit.

RESULTS

After screening 351 patients, we enrolled 50 participants with unexplained syncope from January 2017 to January 2019. The most common reason for exclusion was lack of clinical equipoise to justify SDM (n = 124). Patients in the SynDA arm tended to have greater patient involvement, as shown by higher OPTION-5 scores: 52/100 versus 27/100 (between-group difference = -25.4, 95% confidence interval = -13.5 to -37.3). Both groups had similar levels of clinical knowledge, ratings of care, and serious clinical outcomes at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ED patients with unexplained syncope, a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool is feasible. Although this study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, it demonstrates feasibility, while providing key lessons and effect sizes that could inform the design of future SDM trials.