Role of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in risk stratification of adult syncope

Aims: To assess the value of a near-patient brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) test to predict medium term (3 month) serious outcome for adult syncope patients presenting to a UK emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a prospective cohort pilot study. Consecutive patients aged ⩾16 years presenting with syncope over a 3 month period were eligible for prospective enrolment. All patients who were medium or high risk according to our ED’s existing syncope guidelines underwent near-patient BNP testing using the Triage point of care machine. Results: 99 patients were recruited. 72 of 82 high and medium risk patients underwent BNP measurement. 11 patients had a serious outcome, 9 of whom had BNP measured. In 25 (35%) patients, BNP was ⩾100 pg/ml, and in 3 of these it was >1000 pg/ml. 6 of the 25 patients (24%) with a BNP >100 pg/ml, and all 3 patients with a BNP >1000 pg/ml, were in the serious outcome group. BNP was raised over 100 pg/ml in 6 of the 9 serious outcome patients having a BNP measured (66%), and over 1000 pg/ml in 3 (33%). Conclusions: This early work suggests that BNP may have a role in the risk assessment of syncope patients in the ED. Further work is required to see how BNP interacts with other clinical variables. Near-patient BNP testing may be shown to be an independent predictor of adverse outcome either alone or incorporated into existing syncope clinical decision rules and scores in order to improve their sensitivity and specificity. Further studies are required to evaluate this.

[1]  A. Dobson,et al.  How well does B-type natriuretic peptide predict death and cardiac events in patients with heart failure: systematic review , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  Rose Anne Kenny,et al.  Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope--update 2004. , 2004, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[3]  George A Wells,et al.  Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes. , 2004, Annals of emergency medicine.

[4]  Tsutomu Takahashi,et al.  Usefulness of brain natriuretic peptide as a marker for separating cardiac and noncardiac causes of syncope. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[5]  B. Hanusa,et al.  A risk score to predict arrhythmias in patients with unexplained syncope. , 2003, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[6]  D. Levy,et al.  Incidence and prognosis of syncope. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Rose Anne Kenny,et al.  Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope-update 2004. Executive Summary. , 2005, European heart journal.

[8]  Eva Pietrzak,et al.  A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of natriuretic peptides for heart failure. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[9]  W. Stevenson,et al.  Syncope--getting to the heart of the matter. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  S. Silvers,et al.  Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of patients presenting with syncope. , 2001, Annals of emergency medicine.

[11]  M Linzer,et al.  Diagnosing syncope. Part 2: Unexplained syncope. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. , 1997, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  I. Stiell,et al.  Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[13]  B. Hanusa,et al.  Do symptoms predict cardiac arrhythmias and mortality in patients with syncope? , 1999, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  W. Kapoor,et al.  Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope. , 2001, European heart journal.

[15]  B. Hanusa,et al.  Is syncope a risk factor for poor outcomes? Comparison of patients with and without syncope. , 1996, The American journal of medicine.

[16]  Mark Linzer,et al.  CLINICAL GUIDELINE: Diagnosing Syncope: Part 2: Unexplained Syncope , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  Massimo Santini,et al.  Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. , 2003, European heart journal.

[18]  W. Kapoor,et al.  CLINICAL GUIDELINE: Diagnosing Syncope: Part 1: Value of History, Physical Examination, and Electrocardiography , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  R. Prescott,et al.  The Risk stratification Of Syncope in the Emergency department (ROSE) pilot study: a comparison of existing syncope guidelines , 2007, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[20]  H. G. Martin,et al.  Prospective evaluation of syncope. , 1984, Annals of emergency medicine.

[21]  W. Kapoor,et al.  A prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with syncope. , 1983, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  W. Kapoor,et al.  CLINICAL GUIDELINE: Diagnosing Syncope: Part 1: Value of History, Physical Examination, and Electrocardiography , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.