The value of clinical characteristics from a standard questionnaire to discriminate cardiac from neurological syncope in the elderly.

OBJECTIVES: To identify signs and symptoms to differentiate cardiac from neurological syncope in patients over 70 using a standardized questionnaire. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five short-stay units in a French university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-one in-patients with syncope aged 70 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were interviewed about the signs and symptoms that had been present before, during or after syncope. When possible, a witness who had been present during syncope was also interviewed to compare theirs and the patients' answers. The sensitivity and specificity of 35 questions were calculated among 3 groups defined according to the cause of syncope: cardiac (n = 58), neurological (n = 31) and syncope of unknown origin (n = 42). Statistical analyses were performed to determine discriminating signs and symptoms among the causes and crude agreement was calculated for answers from patients and witnesses. RESULTS: Only 8 and 3 of 35 questions had a sensitivity of at least 0.5 for cardiac and neurological causes respectively. A feeling of impending syncope, thoracic oppression, recall of events preceding syncope and a history of arrhythmia were independently and significantly discriminant among groups. Recall of events preceding syncope (Odds Ratio (OR) = 7.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.2-25.3) and a personal history of arrhythmia (OR = 4.8; 95% CI = 1.6-14.2) were discriminant between cardiac and neurological causes suggesting mostly a cardiac cause. Agreement between patients and witnesses was only found for questions on the patient's medical history or the circumstances surrounding the onset of syncope. CONCLUSIONS: Recall of events preceding syncope and a history of arrhythmia are strongly suggestive of a cardiac rather than a neurological cause of syncope. Interviews of witnesses are not helpful in suggesting a cause for syncope.

[Inappropriate prescription of heparin at curative doses in the hospital. Can the information to prescribing physicians decrease misuse?]. / Prescriptions inappropriées d'héparine à dose curative en milieu hospitalier, l'information des prescripteurs diminue-t-elle les erreurs?

OBJECTIVES: To control whether prescriptions of curative doses of heparin (non fractioned heparins, enoxaparin, tinzaparin) in the hospital complied with the official recommendations; to provide the physicians with information adapted to the recorded misuse and to evaluate the influence of this information. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted between May and October 1999 on the prescriptions of 20 residents from 6 services in 3 phases: phase P1 with initial evaluation (particularly on the indications for heparin, the molecule administered, initial dose and monitoring), phase P2 with analysis and diffusion of an adapted information and phase P3 with final evaluation. RESULTS: 111 inpatients were included in the phase P1 (66.7% aged over 75 years, 18.9% with creatinin clearance below 30 ml/mn) and 101 inpatients were included in the phase P3 (56.4% aged over 75 years, 10.8% with renal failure). During phase P1: among the prescriptions of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) 54.3% did not comply with the official recommendations; initial doses were too high in 15.3% of patients; mean initial doses of LMWH were not adapted to age, weight or creatinin clearance. Only 58.5% of patients had their platelets monitored. On the other hand, 15.3% of patients exhibited heparin side effects. During phase P3, the main modifications in prescriptions were a reduction in inappropriate indications for LMWH, reduction in LMWH prescriptions in patients aged over 75 or with excessive body weight or with renal failure, and increased platelet monitoring, but without significant difference. On the other hand, mean initial doses of each heparin were not modified. Heparin complications decreased but not significantly. CONCLUSION: This study highlights a real context of heparin prescription at curative doses, often differing from clinical studies, particularly with regards to age, renal failure and comorbidity; prescriptions often unadapted to official recommendations on indications, dose and monitoring; a real but limited influence of appropriate information for the physicians, which partially depends on the accuracy of official recommendations, particularly in patients with increased hemorrhagic risk.