• Ali Bozorgi, Kaveh Hosseini, Arash Jalali, and Masih Tajdini.
• From the Tehran Heart Center and School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
• Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2018 Sep 1; 17 (3): 151-154.

BackgroundWe aimed to compare current syncope risk stratification scores and propose a new more feasible and easy-to-use one.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, we enrolled all patients (≥18 years) with chief complaint of syncope if they were not eligible for admission in terms of high-risk features. San Francisco Syncope Rule, Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio, and risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department scores were compared in our population.ResultsOverall, 356 patients (mean age: 44.5 years, 46.3% male) were followed for 3 months. Serious adverse events occurred in 26 (7.3%) patients including 4 deaths. Odds ratio for adverse events was 6.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-16.1; P < 0.001; area under the curve (AUC): 66.3], 7.7 (95% CI, 3.2-18; P < 0.001; AUC: 72.8), and 18 (95% CI, 7.1-45.4; P < 0.001; AUC: 70.8) when considering San Francisco Syncope Rule, Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio, and risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department scores as the predicting tools, respectively. We proposed a relatively more feasible risk score (presenting symptoms, history of cardiovascular diseases, ejection fraction <50%, and predefined electrocardiography abnormalities). According to this syncope score, odds ratio for occurring adverse events was 20.9 (95% CI, 8.4-52; P < 0.001; AUC: 79.8).ConclusionsThe 3 syncope risk scores could somehow predict 3-month adverse events. We found more feasible indicators that could predict serious events better. It suits well for emergency department.

48 keywords...

hide…