A Product, News and Clinical Update
for the Electrophysiology Professional
May 12, 2008

Commonly Searched EP Topics


Syncope Management in the Emergency Department Utilizing a Multidisciplinary Approach (SEEDS Study)
Features:
Syncope Management in the Emergency Department Utilizing a Multidisciplinary Approach (SEEDS Study)

- Win-Kuang Shen, MD and Douglas Beinborn, RN, MA

Syncope is defined as a sudden and transient loss of consciousness and postural tone with spontaneous recovery without the assistance of a therapeutic intervention. It is estimated that the lifetime prevalence of syncope could reach approximately 50% of the general population. In the United States, it is estimated that one to two million patients are evaluated for syncope annually. This represents anywhere from three to five percent of all emergency room visits and one to six percent of all hospital admissions.


Mayo Clinic.



       Dr. Shen and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic conducted the Syncope Evaluation in the Emergency Department Study (SEEDS). The genesis of the study was based on the central question whether an area designated for syncope evaluation in the emergency department or a syncope unit could affect the diagnostic yield and the rate of hospital admissions for syncope patients with intermediate-risk profiles for a poor prognosis. The hypothesis was that a syncope unit equipped with diagnostic resources that target the common causes of syncope would improve the diagnostic yield and reduce the hospital admission rate compared to patients undergoing a standard work-up.

Causes of Syncope
       The SEEDS study defined 10 diagnostic categories that were based on the pathophysiological mechanisms and therapeutic targets. These ten categories were: 1) bradyarrhythmias; 2) ventricular arrhythmias; 3) supraventricular tachyarrhythmias; 4) structural cardiac or cardiopulmonary causes; 5) neurocardiogenic or situational syncope; 6) carotid sinus hypersensitivity; 7) cerebrovascular disease; 8) orthostatic intolerance; 9) syncope-like conditions such as psychogenic or hyperventilation; and 10) unknown.
       During the initial emergency room evaluation, patients were stratified into one of three categories: high risk, intermediate risk, and low risk (Table 1). High-risk patients are deemed appropriate for hospital admission, intermediate risk are potential hospital admissions, and low-risk patients met the guidelines that meant hospital admission was not required. Patients that were enrolled in the study experienced syncope of intermediate risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. According to the current practice, most of these patients are routinely admitted for inpatient evaluation.

Table 1. Emergency Department Risk Stratification of Patients with Syncope of Unknown Cause.

-

High-risk group:
Chest pain compatible with acute coronary syndrome
Signs of congestive heart failure
Moderate/severe valvular disease
History of ventricular arrhythmias
ECG/cardiac monitor findings of ischemia
Prolonged QTc (> 500 ms)
Trifascicular block or pauses between 2–3 seconds
Persistent sinus bradycardia between 40–60 beats/minute
Atrial fibrillation and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia without symptoms
Cardiac devices (pacemaker or defibrillator) with dysfunction

Intermediate-risk group:
Age >= to 50 years old
With previous history of:
Coronary artery disease Myocardial infarction Congestive heart failure
Cardiomyopathy without active symptoms or signs on cardiac medications
Bundle branch block or Q wave without acute changes on ECG
Family history of premature (< 50 years old), unexplained sudden death
Symptoms not consistent with a reflex-mediated or vasovagal cause
Cardiac devices without evidence of dysfunction
Physician's judgment that suspicion of cardiac syncope is reasonable

Low-risk group:
Age < 50 years old
With no previous history of:
Cardiovascular disease
Symptoms consistent with reflex-mediated or vaso-vagal syncope
Normal cardiovascular examination
Normal ECG findings

ECG = electrocardiographic




Study Design
       This study was designed to operate in three phases. Phase 1 occurred from the time of arrival in the emergency department to the dismissal from the emergency department. The patients presenting with syncope were placed on cardiac monitor, given nasal oxygen, and started on an IV. A complete history was obtained, a physical examination was given, and an ECG was obtained. Then the patients were randomized to routine emergency room evaluation or to the syncope unit to receive continuous cardiac monitoring for up to six hours. Echocardiograms were obtained on those patients with abnormal cardiovascular examinations or an abnormal ECG. A tilt table test was recommended in patients who had a history of cardiac disease, an abnormal ECG, presented with symptoms atypical for cardiogenic syncope, or in patients without known or confirmed cardiac disease presenting with symptoms atypical for neurocardiogenic syncope or orthostatic intolerance. Phase 2 of the study included the period of time of emergency department dismissal to the completion of the index event evaluation (whether in hospital or in outpatient clinic). Phase 3 of the study was the time period of follow-up.

Syncope Unit Design
       The design of the syncope unit was based on the common causes of syncope and the available diagnostic tools suitable in an emergency room setting. A multidisciplinary approach is critical for the evaluation of syncope in the emergency room since there are numerous causes. For this study, the physicians involved included those from the emergency room, cardiologists, and electrophysiologists who share expertise in triage, diagnosis, therapy options, and education. A neurologic examination was not part of this study, because neurological conditions such as seizure or stroke were differentiated from the syncope unit based on clinical presentation.

Phase 1: Primary Endpoints
       Phase 1 of the study ended with the dismissal from the emergency department. For the patients enrolled in the syncope unit, sixty-seven percent of these individuals had an identified cause for their syncope as compared to 10% in the standard care group. See Table 2 for the breakdown of diagnosis during phase 1 and phase 2 of the evaluation. Neurocardiogenic syncope was the most frequent diagnosis in the syncope unit (21 patients or 41%). Two patients had arrhythmogenic cause (one ventricular tachycardia and one transient bradycardia). In the standard care group, five patients (10%) had the presumptive diagnosis established in the emergency room. Two were presumed to have vasovagal syncope and the other three were diagnosed with dehydration. All five of these patients experienced recurrent symptoms while receiving standard care in the emergency department.
       Hospital admissions varied significantly between the two populations. The syncope unit patients had a 43% admission rate, whereas there was a 98% rate in the standard care group.

Phase 2: Completion of Index Event Evaluation
       At the conclusion of the index evaluation, the overall rates for presumed causes of syncope were similar between the two randomized groups. This finding is not surprising since all patients, regardless of how they were randomized, were expected to have undergone similar evaluation by the conclusion of the index evaluation. Although the mean hospital length of stay was similar between the two groups, the total inpatient hospital days were reduced by more than 50% in the syncope unit group.

Phase 3: Follow-up Outcomes
       During a mean follow-up of 18 months, mortality, recurrent syncope, and a combined mortality and recurrent syncope rates were not different between the randomized groups.

Major Findings
       This study was designed as a prospective, single-center, randomized study, looking at patients with intermediate risk syncope that is unexplained upon admission. This study demonstrated four main findings.
1. There was a significantly higher diagnosis yield and a decreased hospital admission rate in the syncope unit as compared to the standard care.
2. At the conclusion of the study, the net diagnostic yield was similar in the two groups.
3. The total length of hospital admission was reduced by > 50% for patients in the syncope unit as compared to the conventional group. This was directly related to the decreased hospitalization rate.
4. Follow-up outcomes for all-cause mortality and recurrent syncope were similar for the two groups.

Conclusion
       This syncope unit study provided the first evidence that a designated unit in the emergency department to evaluate intermediate risk syncope can be an effective option as compared to conventional approach. Many similarly equipped units have been established across the United States for the evaluation of chest pain, and these have been shown to be cost-effective and safe. Utilizing a multidisciplinary collaboration in the syncope unit provided efficient and effective evaluation, as well as triage of the patients. With rapidly growing health care costs, this novel model can significantly reduce inpatient hospital days and optimize patient care in the emergency department.


1. Soteriades ES, Evans JC, Larson MG, et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope. N Engl J Med 2002;347:878–885.
2. Brignole M, Alboni P, Benditt D, et al., Task Force on Syncope, European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope. Eur Heart J 2001;22:1256–1306.
3. Kapoor WN. Evaluation and outcome of patients with syncope. Medicine (Baltimore) 1990;69:160–175.
4. Day SC, Cook EF, Funkenstein H, Goldman L. Evaluation and outcome of emergency room patients with transient loss of consciousness. Am J Med 1982;73:15–23.
5. Kapoor WN, Karpf M, Wieand S, et al. A prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with syncope. N Engl J Med 1983;309:197–204.
6. Manolis AS, Linzer M, Salem D, Estes NA III. Syncope: Current diagnostic evaluation and management. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:850–863.
7. Manolis AS. The clinical spectrum and diagnosis of syncope. Herz 1993;18:143–154.
8. Olshansky B. Syncope: Overview and approach to management. In: Grubb BP, Olshansky B (eds). Syncope: Mechanisms and Management. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Co.; 1998. pp. 15–71.
9. Pires LA, Ganji JR, Jarandila R, Steele R. Diagnostic patterns and temporal trends in the evaluation of adult patients hospitalized with syncope. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1889–1895.
10. Del Greco M, Cozzio S, Scillieri M, et al., The ECSIT (Epidemiology and Costs of Syncope In Trento) study. Diagnostic pathway of syncope and analysis of the impact of guidelines in a district general hospital. Ital Heart J 2003;4:99–106.
11. Farwell DJ, Sulke AN. Does the use of a syncope diagnostic protocol improve the investigation and management of syncope? Heart 2004;90:52–58.
12. Ammirati F, Colivicchi F, Santini M. Diagnosing syncope in clinical practice. Implementation of a simplified diagnostic algorithm in a multicentre prospective trial — The OESIL 2 study (Osservatorio Epidemiologico della Sincope nel Lazio). Eur Heart J 2000;21:935–940.
13. Cunningham R, Mikhail MG. Management of patients with syncope and cardiac arrhythmias in an emergency department observation unit. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2001;19:105–121.
14. Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, et al., for the OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: The OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J 2003;24:811–819.
15. Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes NA III, et al., Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. Diagnosing syncope. Part 1: Value of history, physical examination, and electrocardiography. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:989–996.
16. Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes NA III, et al., Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. Diagnosing syncope. Part 2: Unexplained syncope. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:76–86.
17. American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of patients presenting with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37:771–776.
18. Lee RT, Cook EF, Day SC, Goldman L. Long-term survival after transient loss of consciousness. J Gen Intern Med 1988;3:337–343.
19. Martin TP, Hanusa BH, Kapoor WN. Risk stratification of patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 1997;29:459–466.
20. Elesber AA, Decker WW, Smars PA, et al. Impact of the application of the American College of Emergency Physicians recommendations for the admission of syncopal patients on a retrospectively studied population presenting to the emergency department. Am Heart J 2004 (in press).
21. Kapoor WN, Hanusa BH. Is syncope a risk factor for poor outcomes? Comparison of patients with and without syncope. Am J Med 1996;100:646–655.
22. Getchell WS, Larsen GC, Morris CD, McAnulty JH. Epidemiology of syncope in hospitalized patients. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:677–687.
23. Alboni P, Brignole M, Menozzi C, et al. Diagnostic value of history in patients with syncope with or without heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1921–1928.
24. Klein GJ, Gersh BJ, Yee R. Electrophysiological testing. The final court of appeal for diagnosis of syncope? Circulation 1995;92:1332–1335.
25. Shen WK. Role of invasive electrophysiologic testing in the evaluation and management of syncope. Cardiac Electrophysiology Review 1997;4:478–485.
26. Chen LY, Gersh BJ, Hodge DO, et al. Prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients with multiple potential causes of syncope. Mayo Clin Proc 2003;78:414–420.
27. Fenton AM, Hammill SC, Rea RF, et al. Vasovagal syncope. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:714–725.
28. Shen WK, Low PA, Rea RF, et al. Distinct hemodynamic profiles in patients with vasovagal syncope: A heterogeneous population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:1470–1477.
29. Calkins H, Shyr Y, Frumin H, et al. The value of the clinical history in the differentiation of syncope due to ventricular tachycardia, atrioventricular block, and neurocardiogenic syncope. Am J Med 1995;98:365–373.
30. Kapoor WN. Current evaluation and management of syncope. Circulation 2002;106:1606–1609.
31. Croci F, Brignole M, Alboni P, et al. The application of a standardized strategy of evaluation in patients with syncope referred to three syncope units. Europace 2002;4:351–355.
32. Disertori M, Brignole M, Menozzi C, et al., Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study. Management of patients with syncope referred urgently to general hospitals. Europace 2003;5:283–291.
33. Brignole M, Disertori M, Menozzi C, et al, Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study group. Management of syncope referred urgently to general hospitals with and without syncope units. Europace 2003;5:293–298.
34. Schillinger M, Domanovits H, Mullner M, et al. Admission for syncope: Evaluation, cost and prognosis. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2000;112:835–841.
35. Benditt DG, Ferguson DW, Grubb BP, et al, American College of Cardiology. Tilt table testing for assessing syncope. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:263–275.
36. Farkouh ME, Smars PA, Reeder GS, et al., Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. A clinical trial of a chest-pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1882–1888.

EP Lab Digest - ISSN: 1535-2226 - Volume 5 - Issue 5 (May 2005) - May 2005 - Pages: 22 - 24

© 2008 HMP Communications
|
All Rights Reserved
83 General Warren Blvd, Suite 100
|
Malvern, PA 19355
Phone: 610-560-0500
|
Fax: 866-488-8273
NACCME.com is your one-stop source for continuing education. Browse through archived webcasts, journal articles, as well as upcoming live events and symposia at www.naccme.com/cardiology














Search Articles




Contact Us

  • Subscribe to EP Lab Digest
  • Article Submission
  • Advertise with Us
  • Become a Spotlight Interview
  • Email Discussion Group
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Subscribe to EP Lab Enews