“Done Fell Out”, or DFO, is a common saying in the South to describe syncope. Although the saying is funny the diagnosis is not. Syncope accounts for about 3–5% of ED visits and 1–6% of hospital admissions. In patients >65, syncope is the 6th most common cause of hospitalization.
How do you approach the management of patients with syncope?
Causes of syncope
| Causes of Syncope & The Presence or Absence of CV Disease | ||||
| CV Disease | CV Disease Absent | CV Disease Present | ||
| Sex | Male | Female | Male | Female |
| Cardiac Etiology | 6.5% | 3.8% | 26.7% | 16.8% |
Why Does CV Disease Matter?
Bottom Line: Cardiac etiologies of syncope (red line above) have the highest associated mortality!
Do Risk Stratification Tools Work?
.jpg){kind=link}
These rules are difficult to evaluate in part because of different weights on different variables contributing to the scoring system. A major problem with most of these scoring systems is that older patients are underrepresented. This is an issue because as our patient population gets older so does the incidence of syncope and the incidence of cardiac etiologies.
Bottom Line: Educated clinician judgment based on EBM guidelines (European Society for Cardiology and ACEP) seems to be the best strategy for management. Syncope prediction rules can certainly aid this process, but they do not yet fit for use alone for risk stratification in any population.
What is the ACEP Level-B Recommendation for Admission?
- Older age and associated comorbidities (No set definition)
- Abnormal EKG findings (acute ischemia, dysrhythmias, or significant conduction abnormalities)
- Hematocrit
- History or presence of CHF, CAD, or structural heart disease
Does Everyone with Syncope Need a Head CT?
ACEP’s Level C recommendation states Cranial CT scanning need NOT be routinely performed unless guided by specific findings in the history or physical exam. So what are those findings?
Bottom Line: Clinicians might consider obtaining a Head CT as part of the syncope evaluation for the following findings:
- Trauma above the clavicle
- Persistent neurologic deficit or complaint
- Age >65
- Sudden onset headache
- Patients on warfarin (coumadin)
What about using Syncope Management Units (SMUs)?
Because a definitive diagnosis cannot be established immediately, hospital admission is frequently recommended as the “default” approach to ensure patient’s safety and guarantee an expedited evaluation. The problem with this is the hospital care is expensive, and no studies to date have shown that clinical outcomes are improved by the in-patient practice approach. The concept of the SMU is like a chest pain observation unit. Place syncope patients under observation in the ED, and use a multidisciplinary team of physicians to perform the consultation, echo, telemetry, and other diagnostic tests from the ED.
Below are the findings from the Syncope Evaluation in the Emergency Department Study (SEEDS) study:
Bottom Line: This is an interesting concept and shows decreased hospital admission. This particular study, however, was poorly powered, unblinded, and had no cost-benefit analysis. A multicenter, multidisciplinary study would need to be performed to externally, validate and standardize the risk stratification scheme and concept of a SMU before implementation.
FINAL THOUGHTS on management and disposition
It is our job as emergency physicians to NOT identify a precise cause of syncope. Instead, we should aim to risk-stratify our patients: Who needs to be hospitalized (high risk) versus who can be safely discharge home (low risk) with outpatient follow up? The keys are:
- Use clinician judgment aided partly by risk stratification scores.
- Remember ACEP’s recommendations on syncope admissions.
References
- Al-Nsoor NM. Brain Computed Tomography in Patients with Syncope. Neurosciences 2010 Apr; 15 (2): 105 – 9. PMID: 20672498
- Del Rosso A et al. Clinical Predictors of Cardiac Syncope at Initial Evaluation in Patients Referred Urgently to A General Hosptial: The EGSYS Score. Heart 2008 Dec; 94 (12): 1620 – 6. PMID:18519550
- Giglio P et al. Syncope and head CT Scans in the Emergency Department. Emerg radiol 2005 Dec; 12 (1-2): 44 – 6. PMID: 16292675
- Goyal N et al. The Utility of Head Computed Tomography in the emergency Department Evaluation of Syncope. Intern Emerg Med 2006; 1 (2): 148 – 50. PMID: 17111790
- Grossman SA et al. Reducing Admissions Utilizing the Boston Syncope Criteria. J Emerg Med 2012 Mar; 42 (3): 345 – 52. PMID: 21421292
- Grossman SA et al. The Yield of Head Ct in Syncope: A Pilot Study. Intern Emerg Med 2007 Mar; 2 (1): 46 – 9. PMID: 17551685
- Huff JS et al. Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2007 Apr; 49 (4): 431 – 44. PMID: 17371707
- Numeroso F et al. Syncope in the Emergency Department of a Large Northern Italian Hospital Incidence, Efficacy of a Short-Stay Observation Ward and Validation of the OESIL Risk Score. Emerg Med J 2010 Sep; 27 (9): 653 – 8. PMID: 20515909
- Pires LA et al. Diagnostic Paterns and Temproal Trends in the Evaluation of Adult Patients Hospitalized With Syncope. Arch Intern Med 2001 Aug; 161 (15): 1889 – 95. PMID: 11493131
- Reed MJ et al. The ROSE (Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010 Feb; 55 (8): 713 – 21. PMID: 20170806
- Snead GR et al. Can the San Francisco Syncope Rule Predict Short-Term Serious Outcomes in Patients Presenting with Syncope? Ann Emerg Med 2013 Jan. PMID: 23332611
- Soteriades ES et al. Incidence and Prognosis of Syncope. NEJM 2002; 347: 878 – 85. PMID: 12239256.
- Sun BC et al. Predictors of 30-day Serious Events in Older Patients with Syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2009 Dec; 54 (6): 769 – 778. PMID: 19766355
Author information
The post Management of Syncope appeared first on ALiEM.