Validation of the Canadian syncope risk score in a large prospective international multicenter study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Management and risk stratification of patients with syncope in the emergency department (ED) is often challenging. In an effort to support ED physicians in disposition decisions, the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was developed to predict 30-day serious outcomes. Methods The CSRS was developed in a Canadian multicenter study and contains nine predictors: predisposition to vasovagal syncope, heart disease, systolic pressure <90 or >180mmHg in the ED, troponin level >99th percentile, abnormal QRS axis, QRS duration >130ms, QTc interval >480ms and an ED diagnosis of vasovagal or cardiac syncope. Patients can achieve a CSRS score between −3 and +11 points. We validated the CSRS in a large prospective international multicenter study recruiting patients 40 years or older presenting to the ED with a syncopal event within the last 12 hours. Recruitment centers contained smaller provincial hospitals, as well as big University Hospitals in eight countries on three continents. Primary outcome measure were 30-day serious arrhythmic and non-arrhythmic adverse events, as defined by the authors of the original score. Results 1581 patients were eligible for this analysis. The population in this validation cohort was older (mean age 68 vs 54 years) and had a considerably higher rate of serious outcomes compared to the derivation cohort (n=186 (11.8%) vs n=147 (3.6%)). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the CSRS was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86–0.91) and significantly higher compared to the validated OESIL score (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.71–0.78, p<0.001). Calibration curve analysis showed an underestimation of risk in patients with a low CSRS and an overestimation in patients with a high CSRS. The rate of observed serious outcomes within 30d increased from 0.8% in the very low risk group (CSRS equal to or below −2) to 48% in the (very) high risk group (CSRS equal to or above 4, Hazard ratio 79.4, 95% CI 11.1–570.9). A Kaplan-Meier plot was used to visualize rates of serious outcomes in three different risk groups (Figure). Conclusion This is the first validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score in a large international syncope cohort. The prognostic discrimination of the CSRS for 30-day serious outcomes was very good in our validation cohort and comparable to that of the Canadian derivation study. Despite suboptimal calibration, prognostic analysis showed a high rate of serious outcomes in the CSRS (very) high risk group and a low rate of serious outcomes in the very low risk group. Allowing the clinical judgement of the ED physician in the form of suspected syncope etiology to be a part of the score seems to largely contribute to the high performance of the CSRS. Additional validation studies might be needed to further increase the accuracy of the CSRS in different patient populations with a different incidence of outcomes in settings outside of Canada. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Swiss National Science Foundation; Swiss Heart Foundation
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».