Syncope clinical management in the emergency department: a consensus from the first international workshop on syncope risk stratification in the emergency department

The optimal emergency department (ED) evaluation of syncope is uncertain. Research reports from multiple countries suggest extensive practice variation, high costs, and questionable benefit associated with current approaches.1–5 Moreover, only a few of the recommendations from international syncope guidelines deal with ED management.6–8 For example, the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which are the most inclusive syncope guidelines, do not address the ED management. This could be due to limited evidence on how to stratify the risk and decide on disposition of these patients in the ED.1,9 We organized a multi-specialty workshop of North American and European syncope experts on 26–27 September 2013 in Gargnano, Italy, with the aim of obtaining a modified Delphi consensus on the best way to manage ED syncope patients. As already described,10 we followed a four-step conceptual model for the ED decision-making in syncope: (i) Is it syncope? (ii) Is there a serious underlying condition identified in the ED? (iii) If the cause is uncertain, what is the risk of a serious outcome? (iv) For a given risk profile, how can these patients be best managed in the ED and what evaluation and restrictions are required? (Figure 1) . Conceptual model: ED management of syncope. Expert recruitment and consensus development have been described previously.10 Details can be found in Supplementary material online, Appendix S1. The full list of questions and answers to the first and second survey rounds as well as the degree of agreement on each item is reported in Supplementary material online, Appendix S2. According to the ESC guidelines, syncope is defined as a transient loss of consciousness (T-LOC) due to transient global cerebral hypoperfusion characterized by rapid onset, short duration, and spontaneous complete recovery.7 Since the presence of cerebral hypoperfusion cannot always be determined on clinical grounds in the ED, every T-LOC without apparent causes should be considered as syncope until proven otherwise. As addressed in previous guidelines,6,7,11 the patient's assessment should include history, physical examination, ECG, supine and standing blood pressure measurement and subsequent tests (such as blood sampling, carotid sinus massage, echocardiogram, chest X-ray, blood gas analysis) according to clinical characteristics and physician judgment. If the aetiology of syncope is identified during ED stay, the patient will be managed according to the causal condition. Since the cause for syncope can be difficult to determine in the ED, risk stratification is an important part of ED physician decision-making. Patients with an established underlying syncope diagnosis should be evaluated according the cause of syncope and the presence or absence of co-morbid conditions. Patients with low-risk symptoms (symptoms consistent with neurally mediated syncope) might need risk stratification only if other high-risk characteristics exist (e.g. a history of cardiac disease). Some scenarios can be problematic. For example, orthostatic hypotension can coexist with an asymptomatic tachyarrhythmia and only their association provokes syncope. Therefore, the finding of abnormalities does not always lead to a definitive diagnosis. It is unknown if hospitalization can reduce adverse events in patients with unexplained syncope, nor it is known if a patient's prognosis is affected by syncope or by other co-morbidities.12 Therefore, it is not possible to identify a definitive common acceptable risk threshold to be used to discharge patients with syncope from ED. The decision to admit a patient should take into account cost, possible adverse events related to the hospitalization itself, and the clinical utility of hospitalization in the management of these patients. Different risk stratification tools have been developed and tested so far but none have definitely proved to perform better than clinical judgment.1,9,13,14 Moreover, as the admission rates vary widely across different countries, the available clinical rules, which aim at identifying high- and low-risk patients to guide hospital admission, cannot be applied universally. For example, a clinical decision rule enabling a reduction in admissions in a setting characterized by previous high rate of admissions may paradoxically increase the admission rate in a different setting. Although there is increasing interest in the use of biomarkers for syncope risk stratification, including troponins and brain natriuretic peptides, these biomarkers cannot be recommended for routine care at present.15,16 The classification of a patient in a risk category depends on the characteristics of both the syncopal episode and the patient. Here we suggest three levels of risks: Low risk: patients with one or more low risk characteristics and without any high-risk characteristics; High risk: patients with at least one high-risk characteristic; Patient neither at high, nor at low risk. Namely, patients with any of the following: comorbidities who would otherwise be at low risk; without any comorbidity whose syncope has some worrisome characteristics itself; without any low- or high-risk characteristics'. Table 1 shows the low- and high-risk characteristics. High- and low-risk factors According to characteristics of the patient and the syncopal episode, the subject can be defined as low, high or indeterminate risk. Low risk: patients with one or more low-risk characteristics and without any high-risk characteristics. High risk: patients with at least one high-risk characteristic. Intermediate or indeterminate risk: Patients without any high- or low-risk characteristics, or patients with only low-risk factors and some co-morbidities such as chronic renal failure, respiratory failure, hepatic failure, neoplasm, cerebrovascular disease or previous history of heart disease. Note that finding any of these abnormalities does not always lead to a definite diagnosis. ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; AV, atrioventricular. aNote that not all the ECG patterns are covered by the table and some other ECG patterns could be considered in stratifying the patients risk such as short QT syndrome, early repolarization, ECG findings indicating hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and incidental finding of Q wave. The classification of patients into high, low and indeterminate risk categories leads to different management algorithms (Figures 1 and 2). Patient management according to risk categories. These patients deserve an intensive diagnostic approach and should be monitored in the ED or in a setting where resuscitation can be performed in the case of deterioration. These patients do not need any other diagnostic tests. The patient can be managed as an outpatient in a syncope clinic, syncope unit or specialty clinic if further assessment is considered, mainly for reassurance, therapy, or counselling. Dealing with these patients is very difficult, because their risk is still indeterminate. Electrocardiographic monitoring was considered the cornerstone for their management. Unfortunately, there is neither evidence nor consensus on the nature and duration of monitoring (most of the experts suggested that monitoring should last at least 3 h). Whether or not inpatient or outpatient ECG monitoring could be more cost-effective is not the aim of the present manuscript. Emergency department monitoring should be considered positive if any of the characteristics of Table 2 are present. Some of them will establish a diagnosis and lead to a prompt treatment (i.e. complete atrioventricular block), others will require hospital admission for further tests. Goals and criteria for monitoring AV, atrioventricular. There is increasing interest in ED observation protocols and syncope units17,18 but the evidence that they can improve patients' prognosis is still lacking.8 Driving and working following syncope must be addressed prior to discharge from the ED. Patients with cardiac syncope should follow existing guidelines and individualized based on their specific diagnosis and treatment. Those with syncope due to an unknown cause but at high risk should be more extensively evaluated for potential causes and treatments before being allowed to go back to driving or work environments that would put themselves or others at risk.19,20 This recommendation should also be considered for non-high-risk patients who suffered significant personal injury from their episode of syncope or from those with recurrent syncope without prodrome. While these guidelines lack strong evidence, they seem reasonable and physicians should also be aware of local mandatory reporting guidelines for driving. Some limitations of the present article should be acknowledged. Since evidence on the best ED management is scant, our recommendations are only based on expert opinion. Moreover, syncope diagnosis is rarely based on a single sign or symptom, and the criteria stated here to indicate high risk do not universally do so. For instance, syncope during exercise does not always indicate cardiac syncope: depending on the circumstance such features can be ignored at times, but only if the full history strongly suggests a benign explanation. In conclusion, while evidence regarding the optimal management of patients with syncope in the ED is still incomplete, we attempted to overcome the lack of evidence by giving clinical advice for everyday clinical practice based on expert consensus. Syncope patients in the ED should be stratified into three different risk categories according to the characteristics present in Table 1. Low-risk patients could be safely discharged. High-risk patients should be assessed and treated more urgently. Patients neither in the high-, nor in the low-risk category should be managed in the ED with ECG monitoring and other diagnostic tools, as appropriate. There is no consensus about the duration of monitoring. Emergency department observation protocols and referral to an outpatient syncope clinic or syncope unit may be helpful. Supplementary Material is available at European Heart Journal online. G.C., M.S., G.C., and R.F. acquired the data. G.C., B.C.S., F.B., I.B., G.C., F.D., D.M., J.Q., M.J.R., R.S.S., M.S., V.T., and R.F. conceived and designed the research. G.C., B.C.S., F.B., I.B., G.C., F.D., D.M., J.Q., M.J.R., R.S.S., M.S., V.T., and R.F. drafted the manuscript. G.C., B.C.S., F.B., I.B., G.C., F.D., D.M., J.Q., M.J.R., R.S.S., M.S., V.T., D.B., N.B., M.B., I.C., A.D.R., P.D., G.F., S.A.G., R.I., A.D.K., N.M., C.A.M., B.O., S.R.R., M.H.R., F.P.S., W.-K.S., I.S., A.U., J.G.v.D., N.v.D., W.W., and R.F. Made critical revision of the manuscript for key intellectual content. Progetto Mattone Internazionale Conflict of interest: B.C.S. was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01HL111033. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health; J.Q.: Scientific Advisory Board for iRhythm Inc.; V.T. was supported by Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada through the Jump Start Resuscitation Scholarship; A.K. consulting for Medtronic; C.A.M. consultant and research funding Medtronic; B.O.: Medtronic—consultant, speaker; Boston Scientific—consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim—consultant; Daiichi Sankyo—consultant; Amarin—DSMB; Bio Control—consultant; Sanofi Aventis—DSMB; Cardionomic—consultant; All of these are <$10 000 and none are direct conflicts with this consensus document; M.H.R. is funded by the Lundbeck Foundation (R108-A104415). Endorsements: Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care; American Autonomic Society; Gruppo Italiano Multidisciplinare per lo Studio della Sincope (Italian Multidisciplinary Group for Syncope Evaluation); Società Italiana di Medicina d'Emergenza-Urgenza (Italian Society of Emergency Medicine); Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (Italian Society of Internal Medicine).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.