MARATTO

article · La Tunisie Médicale

The performance of the Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study score in the diagnostic approach to syncope in emergency department

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Management of syncope in the emergency department (ED) is not yet well codified. Several scores have been developed to facilitate diagnosis and management. According to the European Society of Cardiology, an EGSYS (Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study) score ≥3 predicts cardiac origin. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the performance of the EGSYS score in the diagnosis of cardiac syncope in ED. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study (2011-2021). Inclusion of patients who consult for syncope with calculation of the EGSYS score. Diagnosis of cardiac syncope was based on the results of the cardiological investigation. Patients were divided into two groups: SC+ group with cardiac syncope and SC- group with another etiology. RESULTS: Inclusion of 526 patients. Mean age =49± 20 years. Gender ratio=1.48. Two hundred and thirty-six patients (45%) had a cardiac syncope. Comparison between the two groups SC+ versus (vs. SC-) showed the following results: mean age (58 ±19 vs. 42 ±18 years), history of heart disease: 34 (14.5%) vs. 13 (4.5%), rhythm disorders 22(9.4%) vs. 4(1.4%), bradycardia: 40 (17%) vs. 17 (5.8%), atrioventricular block: 26 (11.1%) vs. 8 (2.7%), bundle branch block: 45 (19.1%) vs. 17 (5.8%), High risk criteria: 138 (58.7%) vs. 75 (25.8%). Diagnostic performance of the EGSYS score was satisfactory with AUC=0.769, CI95% [0.73 - 0.81], p 0.001. The threshold value was 3. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 79, 80, 76 and 83% respectively. Likelihood Ratio: Positive LR=4.04, negative LR=0.26. CONCLUSION: The EGSYS score showed good performance in predicting the cardiac syncope.

Research topics

  • Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Appendicitis Diagnosis and Management
  • Ultrasound in Clinical Applications

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.62438/tunismed.v103i3.5417

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.