Search

Fig. 1 Diagnostic performance of D-dimer using two different assays in patients presenting with syncope. A Left: Receiver-operating characteristic curves quantifying the diagnostic performance of Innovance® D-dimer (blue) and hs-Loci-Innovance® D-dimer (red) for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Right: Clinical application of D-dimer using the 2-level Wells-score with age-adjusted1 or fixed cutoffs versus the YEARS-algorithm with probability-adjusted cut offs2. B Left: Specificity for different cufoffs of Innovance® D-dimer (blue) and hs-Loci-Innovance® D-dimer (red) for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Right: Percentage of patients ruled-in and correctly identified VTE patients for different cutoffs of Innovance® D-dimer (blue) and hs-Loci-Innovance® D-dimer (red). 1In patients 50 years or younger, D-dimer concentration < 0.5 mg/l was considered negative. For patients older than 50 years, we used the formula: age in years divided by 100. 2YEARS-algorithm: assessment of only three items from the Wells-score (clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, pulmonary embolism the most likely diagnosis) and using a D-dimer test threshold of 0.5 mg/l in presence, and 1.0 mg/l in absence of one of the YEARS-items [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was developed to predict 30-day serious outcomes not evident during emergency department (ED) evaluation., Objective: To externally validate the CSRS and compare it with another validated score, the Osservatorio Epidemiologico della Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL) score., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Large, international, multicenter study recruiting patients in EDs in 8 countries on 3 continents., Participants: Patients with syncope aged 40 years or older presenting to the ED within 12 hours of syncope., Measurements: Composite outcome of serious clinical plus procedural events (primary outcome) and the primary composite outcome excluding procedural interventions (secondary outcome)., Results: Among 2283 patients with a mean age of 68 years, the primary composite outcome occurred in 7.2%, and the composite outcome excluding procedural interventions occurred in 3.1% at 30 days. Prognostic performance of the CSRS was good for both 30-day composite outcomes and better compared with the OESIL score (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.88] vs. 0.74 [CI, 0.71 to 0.78] and 0.80 [CI, 0.75 to 0.84] vs. 0.69 [CI, 0.64 to 0.75], respectively). Safety of triage, as measured by the frequency of the primary composite outcome in the low-risk group, was higher using the CSRS (19 of 1388 [0.6%]) versus the OESIL score (17 of 1104 [1.5%]). A simplified model including only the clinician classification of syncope (cardiac syncope, vasovagal syncope, or other) variable at ED discharge-a component of the CSRS-achieved similar discrimination as the CSRS (AUC, 0.83 [CI, 0.80 to 0.87] for the primary composite outcome)., Limitation: Unable to disentangle the influence of other CSRS components on clinician classification of syncope at ED discharge., Conclusion: This international external validation of the CSRS showed good performance in identifying patients at low risk for serious outcomes outside of Canada and superior performance compared with the OESIL score. However, clinician classification of syncope at ED discharge seems to explain much of the performance of the CSRS in this study. The clinical utility of the CSRS remains uncertain., Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation & Swiss Heart Foundation.

Aims: The aim of this study is to characterize recurrent syncope, including sex-specific aspects, and its impact on death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)., Methods and Results: We characterized recurrent syncope in a large international multicentre study, enrolling patients ≥40 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a syncopal event within the last 12 h. Syncope aetiology was centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists using all information becoming available during syncope work-up and long-term follow-up. Overall, 1790 patients were eligible for this analysis. Incidence of recurrent syncope was 20% [95% confidence interval (CI) 18-22%] within the first 24 months. Patients with an adjudicated final diagnosis of cardiac syncope (hazard ratio (HR) 1.50, 95% CI 1.11-2.01) or syncope with an unknown aetiology even after central adjudication (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.54-2.89) had an increased risk for syncope recurrence. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression fit on all patient information available early in the ED identified >3 previous episodes of syncope as the only independent predictor for recurrent syncope (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.64-2.75). Recurrent syncope carried an increased risk for death (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.26-2.77) and MACE (HR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02-3.59) over 24 months of follow-up, however, with a time-dependent effect. These findings were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with syncope recurrence or MACE before or during ED evaluation., Conclusion: Recurrence rates of syncope are substantial and vary depending on syncope aetiology. Importantly, recurrent syncope carries a time-dependent increased risk for death and MACE., Trial Registration: BAsel Syncope EvaLuation (BASEL IX, ClinicalTrials.gov registry number NCT01548352)., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)