Management of syncope in the Emergency Department: a European prospective cohort study (SEED)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: In 2018, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) produced syncope guidelines that for the first-time incorporated Emergency Department (ED) management. However, very little is known about the characteristics and management of this patient group across Europe. OBJECTIVES: To examine the prevalence, clinical presentation, assessment, investigation (ECG and laboratory testing), management and ESC and Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) categories of adult European ED patients presenting with transient loss of consciousness (TLOC, undifferentiated or suspected syncope). DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) presenting to European EDs with TLOC, either undifferentiated or thought to be of syncopal origin. MAIN RESULTS: Between 00:01 Monday, September 12th to 23:59 Sunday 25 September 2022, 952 patients presenting to 41 EDs in 14 European countries were enrolled from 98 301 ED presentations (n = 40 sites). Mean age (SD) was 60.7 (21.7) years and 487 participants were male (51.2%). In total, 379 (39.8%) were admitted to hospital and 573 (60.2%) were discharged. 271 (28.5%) were admitted to an observation unit first with 143 (52.8%) of these being admitted from this. 717 (75.3%) participants were high-risk according to ESC guidelines (and not suitable for discharge from ED) and 235 (24.7%) were low risk. Admission rate increased with increasing ESC high-risk factors; 1 ESC high-risk factor; n = 259 (27.2%, admission rate=34.7%), 2; 189 (19.9%; 38.6%), 3; 106 (11.1%, 54.7%, 4; 62 (6.5%, 60.4%), 5; 48 (5.0%, 67.9%, 6+; 53 (5.6%, 67.9%). Furthermore, 660 (69.3%), 250 (26.3%), 34 (3.5%) and 8 (0.8%) participants had a low, medium, high, and very high CSRS respectively with respective admission rates of 31.4%, 56.0%, 76.5% and 75.0%. Admission rates (19.3-88.9%), use of an observation/decision unit (0-100%), and percentage high-risk (64.8-88.9%) varies widely between countries. CONCLUSION: This European prospective cohort study reported a 1% prevalence of syncope in the ED. 4 in 10 patients are admitted to hospital although there is wide variation between country in syncope management. Three-quarters of patients have ESC high-risk characteristics with admission percentage rising with increasing ESC high-risk factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".