Outcomes and emergency medical services resource utilization among patients with syncope arriving to the emergency department by ambulance.

OBJECTIVE Syncope accounts for 1% of emergency department (ED) visits, yet few experience a serious adverse event (SAE). Two-thirds of syncope patients are transported to the ED by ambulance, placing considerable burden on emergency medical services (EMS), and many of these transports may be unnecessary. We estimated the proportion of syncope patients who fell into a low-risk category based on an ED diagnosis of vasovagal syncope and the absence of EMS intervention, hospitalization, or SAE. METHODS We conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study enrolling adult syncope patients transported to the ED by ambulance over 13 months. We collected demographics and EMS interventions, and followed patients for 30 days to identify all SAE, including death, dysrhythmia, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage, and related procedural interventions. RESULTS Of 990 (67.2%) patients transported to the ED by ambulance, 121 had EMS interventions, 137 suffered 30-day SAE, 393 (39.7%; 95%CI 36.6, 42.8) were deemed low risk, 41 patients with vasovagal syncope were lost to follow-up, and 298 patients were diagnosed with non-vasovagal syncope. During transport, 121 (12.2%; 95%CI 10.2, 14.3) patients underwent some EMS intervention, and 137 (14.6%; 95%CI 12.4, 16.9) suffered SAEs within 30 days. CONCLUSION About 40% of patients transported to the ED by ambulance are at low risk and may not benefit from paramedic care or transport to a hospital. A robust clinical decision tool would help identify patients safe for treat-and-release, diversion to alternative care, or rapid offload into low-acuity ED areas, potentially reducing EMS workload and cost.

[1]  J. Deharo,et al.  [2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope]. , 2018, Kardiologia polska.

[2]  I. Blanchard,et al.  A prehospital treat-and-release protocol for supraventricular tachycardia. , 2015, CJEM.

[3]  M. Taljaard,et al.  Emergency department management of syncope: need for standardization and improved risk stratification , 2015, Internal and Emergency Medicine.

[4]  I. Stiell,et al.  Risk stratification of adult emergency department syncope patients to predict short-term serious outcomes after discharge (RiSEDS) study , 2014, BMC Emergency Medicine.

[5]  E. Hess,et al.  Outcomes in Canadian emergency department syncope patients--are we doing a good job? , 2013, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[6]  M. Brignole,et al.  The Diagnosis and Management of Syncope , 2010, Current hypertension reports.

[7]  David E Newby,et al.  The ROSE (risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department) study. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  J. Blanc,et al.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009) The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) , 2009 .

[9]  P. Bijur,et al.  Failure to validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an independent emergency department population. , 2008, Annals of emergency medicine.

[10]  I. Stiell,et al.  Prospective Validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to Predict Patients With Serious Outcomes , 2006 .

[11]  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.