Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel (CRIB), Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland; GREAT Network.
GREAT Network; Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Oct 15;269:114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.06.088. Epub 2018 Jun 21.
Various scores have been derived for the assessment of syncope patients in the emergency department (ED) but stay inconsistently validated. We aim to compare their performance to the one of a common, easy-to-use CHADS score.
We prospectively enrolled patients ≥ 40 years old presenting with syncope to the ED in a multicenter study. Early clinical judgment (ECJ) of the treating ED-physician regarding the probability of cardiac syncope was quantified. Two independent physicians adjudicated the final diagnosis after 1-year follow-up. Major cardiovascular events (MACE) and death were recorded during 2 years of follow-up. Nine scores were compared by their area under the receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC) for death, MACE or the diagnosis of cardiac syncope.
1490 patients were available for score validation. The CHADS-score presented a higher or equally high accuracy for death in the long- and short-term follow-up than other syncope-specific risk scores. This score also performed well for the prediction of MACE in the long- and short-term evaluation and stratified patients with accuracy comparative to OESIL, one of the best performing syncope-specific risk score. All scores performed poorly for diagnosing cardiac syncope when compared to the ECJ.
The CHADS-score performed comparably to more complicated syncope-specific risk scores in the prediction of death and MACE in ED syncope patients. While better tools incorporating biochemical and electrocardiographic markers are needed, this study suggests that the CHADS-score is currently a good option to stratify risk in syncope patients in the ED.
NCT01548352.
已有多种评分系统被用于评估急诊科(ED)的晕厥患者,但它们的验证结果并不一致。我们旨在比较这些评分系统与一种常见的、易于使用的 CHADS 评分的表现。
我们前瞻性地纳入了在多中心研究中以晕厥为表现就诊于 ED 的年龄≥40 岁的患者。治疗 ED 医生对心源性晕厥可能性的早期临床判断(ECJ)进行了量化。两名独立的医生在 1 年随访后对最终诊断进行了裁决。在 2 年的随访期间记录了主要心血管事件(MACE)和死亡。通过接受者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)比较了 9 种评分系统在死亡、MACE 或心源性晕厥诊断方面的表现。
1490 例患者可用于评分验证。在长期和短期随访中,CHADS 评分在死亡方面的准确性高于其他晕厥特异性风险评分,在 MACE 的预测方面也具有较高或同等的准确性。该评分在长期和短期评估中对 MACE 的预测也具有良好的准确性,与表现最好的晕厥特异性风险评分之一的 OESIL 相当。与 ECJ 相比,所有评分在诊断心源性晕厥方面的准确性都较差。
在 ED 晕厥患者的死亡和 MACE 预测方面,CHADS 评分与更复杂的晕厥特异性风险评分的表现相当。虽然需要更好的工具来纳入生化和心电图标志物,但本研究表明,在 ED 中,CHADS 评分是目前分层晕厥患者风险的一个不错的选择。
NCT01548352。