Does N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Improve the Risk Stratification of Emergency Department Patients With Syncope?

Pentraxin 3: A promising therapeutic target for cardiovascular diseases

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary global cause of death, and inflammation is a crucial factor in the development of CVDs. The acute phase inflammatory protein pentraxin 3 (PTX3) is a biomarker reflecting the immune response. Recent research indicates that PTX3 plays a vital role in CVDs and has been investigated as a possible biomarker for CVD in clinical trials. PTX3 is implicated in the progression of CVDs through mechanisms such as exacerbating vascular endothelial dysfunction, affecting angiogenesis, and regulating inflammation and oxidative stress. This review summarized the structure and function of PTX3, focusing on its multifaceted effects on CVDs, such as atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and hypertension. This may help in explaining the varying PTX3 functions and usage, as well as in utilizing target organs to manage diseases. Moreover, elucidating the opposite role of PTX3 in the cardiovascular system will demonstrate the therapeutic and predictive potential in human diseases.

Risk stratification tools for patients with syncope in emergency medical services and emergency departments: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients with a syncope constitute a challenge for risk stratification in (prehospital) emergency care. Professionals in EMS and ED need to differentiate the high-risk from the low-risk syncope patient, with limited time and resources. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to support professionals in risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Current CDRs seem unable to meet the standards to be used in the chain of emergency care. However, the need for a structured approach for syncope patients remains. We aimed to generate a broad overview of the available risk stratification tools and identify key elements, scoring systems and measurement properties of these tools.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review with a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from January 2010 to May 2022. Study selection was done by two researchers independently and was supervised by a third researcher. Data extraction was performed through a data extraction form, and data were summarised through descriptive synthesis. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a generic quality assessment tool for quantitative research and the AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 5385 unique studies; 38 were included in the review. We discovered 19 risk stratification tools, one of which was established in EMS patient care. One-third of risk stratification tools have been validated. Two main approaches for the application of the tools were identified. Elements of the tools were categorised in history taking, physical examination, electrocardiogram, additional examinations and other variables. Evaluation of measurement properties showed that negative and positive predictive value was used in half of the studies to assess the accuracy of tools.

CONCLUSION

A total of 19 risk stratification tools for syncope patients were identified. They were primarily established in ED patient care; most are not validated properly. Key elements in the risk stratification related to a potential cardiac problem as cause for the syncope. These insights provide directions for the key elements of a risk stratification tool and for a more advanced process to validate risk stratification tools.

Risk stratification of syncope: Current syncope guidelines and beyond

Syncope is an alarming event carrying the possibility of serious outcomes, including sudden cardiac death (SCD). Therefore, immediate risk stratification should be applied whenever syncope occurs, especially in the Emergency Department, where most dramatic presentations occur. It has long been known that short- and long-term syncope prognosis is affected not only by its mechanism but also by presence of concomitant conditions, especially cardiovascular disease. Over the last two decades, several syncope prediction tools have been developed to refine patient stratification and triage patients who need expert in-hospital care from those who may receive nonurgent expert care in the community. However, despite promising results, prognostic tools for syncope remain challenging and often poorly effective. Current European Society of Cardiology syncope guidelines recommend an initial syncope workup based on detailed patient's history, physical examination supine and standing blood pressure, resting ECG, and laboratory tests, including cardiac biomarkers, where appropriate. Subsequent risk stratification based on screening of features aims to identify three groups: high-, intermediate- and low-risk. The first should immediately be hospitalized and appropriately investigated; intermediate group, with recurrent or medium-risk events, requires systematic evaluation by syncope experts; low-risk group, sporadic reflex syncope, merits education about its benign nature, and discharge. Thus, initial syncope risk stratification is crucial as it determines how and by whom syncope patients are managed. This review summarizes the crucial elements of syncope risk stratification, pros and cons of proposed risk evaluation scores, major challenges in initial syncope management, and how risk stratification impacts management of high-risk/recurrent syncope.

Etiology, risk factors, and prognosis of patients with syncope: A single-center analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the main causes, risk factors, and prognosis of patients hospitalized with syncope.

METHODS

The patients admitted due to syncope were included. We analyzed the etiology, risk factors, and prognosis of patients with an average follow-up of 15.3 months.

RESULTS

High-risk factors for cardiogenic syncope included age ≥60, male, hypertension, palpitation, troponin T-positive, abnormal ECG, CHD history, and syncope-related trauma. Mortality rate was 4.6%, recurrence rate of syncope was 10.5%, and the rehospitalization rate was 8.5%. Univariate analysis showed that prognosis of syncope was related to age ≥60 years old, hypertension, positive troponin T, abnormal electrocardiogram, and coronary heart disease (p < .05). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that age ≥60 years old (p = .021) and high-sensitivity troponin-positive (p = .024) were strongly related to the prognosis of syncope. Kaplan-Meier curve showed statistical difference in the survival rate between the groups divided by age ≥60 years (p = .028), hs-TnT-positive (p < .001), abnormal ECG (p = .027), and history of CHD (p = .020).

CONCLUSION

High-risk factors for cardiogenic syncope included age ≥60, male, hypertension, palpitation, troponin T-positive, abnormal ECG, CHD family history, and syncope-related trauma. Age, hypertension, troponin T-positive, abnormal ECG, and CHD history were associated with the prognosis of syncope.

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.