Did This Patient Have Cardiac Syncope?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Importance: Syncope can result from a reduction in cardiac output from serious cardiac conditions, such as arrhythmias or structural heart disease (cardiac syncope), or other causes, such as vasovagal syncope or orthostatic hypotension. Objective: To perform a systematic review of studies of the accuracy of the clinical examination for identifying patients with cardiac syncope. Study Selection: Studies of adults presenting to primary care, emergency departments, or referred to specialty clinics. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Relevant data were abstracted from articles in databases through April 9, 2019, and methodologic quality was assessed. Included studies had an independent comparison to a reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs). Results: Eleven studies of cardiac syncope (N = 4317) were included. Age at first syncope of at least 35 years was associated with greater likelihood of cardiac syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 91% [95% CI, 85%-97%]; specificity, 72% [95% CI, 66%-78%]; LR, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.1]), while age younger than 35 years was associated with a lower likelihood (LR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06-0.25]). A history of atrial fibrillation or flutter (n = 323; sensitivity, 13% [95% CI, 6%-20%]; specificity, 98% [95% CI, 96%-100%]; LR, 7.3 [95% CI, 2.4-22]), or known severe structural heart disease (n = 222; range of sensitivity, 35%-51%, range of specificity, 84%-93%; range of LR, 3.3-4.8; 2 studies) were associated with greater likelihood of cardiac syncope. Symptoms prior to syncope that were associated with lower likelihood of cardiac syncope were mood change or prodromal preoccupation with details (n = 323; sensitivity, 2% [95% CI, 0%-5%]; specificity, 76% [95% CI, 71%-81%]; LR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.02-0.38]), feeling cold (n = 412; sensitivity, 2% [95% CI, 0%-5%]; specificity, 89% [95% CI, 85%-93%]; LR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.06-0.64]), or headache (n = 323; sensitivity, 3% [95% CI, 0%-7%]; specificity, 80% [95% CI, 75%-85%]; LR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.06-0.55]). Cyanosis witnessed during the episode was associated with higher likelihood of cardiac syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 8% [95% CI, 2%-14%]; specificity, 99% [95% CI, 98%-100%]; LR, 6.2 [95% CI, 1.6-24]). Mood changes after syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 3% [95% CI, 0%-7%]; specificity, 83% [95% CI, 78%-88%]; LR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.65]) and inability to remember behavior prior to syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 5% [95% CI, 0%-9%]; specificity, 82% [95% CI, 77%-87%]; LR, 0.25, [95% CI, 0.09-0.69]) were associated with lower likelihood of cardiac syncope. Two studies prospectively validated the accuracy of the multivariable Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study (EGSYS) score, which is based on 6 clinical variables. An EGSYS score of less than 3 was associated with lower likelihood of cardiac syncope (n = 456; range of sensitivity, 89%-91%, range of specificity, 69%-73%; range of LR, 0.12-0.17; 2 studies). Cardiac biomarkers show promising diagnostic accuracy for cardiac syncope, but diagnostic thresholds require validation. Conclusions and Relevance: The clinical examination, including the electrocardiogram as part of multivariable scores, can accurately identify patients with and without cardiac syncope.

Multivariable risk scores for predicting short-term outcomes for emergency department patients with unexplained syncope: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) patients with unexplained syncope are at risk of experiencing an adverse event within 30 days. Our objective was to systematically review the accuracy of multivariate risk stratification scores for identifying adult syncope patients at high and low risk of an adverse event over the next 30 days. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) from database creation until May 2020. We sought studies evaluating prediction scores of adults presenting to an ED with syncope. We included studies that followed patients for up to 30 days to identify adverse events such as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiac surgery. We only included studies with a blinded comparison between baseline clinical features and adverse events. We calculated likelihood ratios and confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We screened 13,788 abstracts. We included 17 studies evaluating nine risk stratification scores on 24,234 patient visits, where 7.5% (95% CI = 5.3% to 10%) experienced an adverse event. A Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) of 4 or more was associated with a high likelihood of an adverse event (LRscore≥4  = 11, 95% CI = 8.9 to 14). A CSRS of 0 or less (LRscore≤0  = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.20) was associated with a low likelihood of an adverse event. Other risk scores were not validated on an independent sample, had low positive likelihood ratios for identifying patients at high risk, or had high negative likelihood ratios for identifying patients at low risk. CONCLUSION: Many risk stratification scores are not validated or not sufficiently accurate for clinical use. The CSRS is an accurate validated prediction score for ED patients with unexplained syncope. Its impact on clinical decision making, admission rates, cost, or outcomes of care is not known.