Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2010, 154(2):169-173 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2010.026

THE EGSYS AND OESIL RISK SCORES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF CARDIAC ETIOLOGY OF SYNCOPE: COMPARISON, REVALUATION, AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Jiri Plaseka, Vlastimil Doupalb, Jana Fürstovac, Arnost Martineka
a Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital and Faculty of Health Studies, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic
b Department of Cardiology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
c Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic

Aims: EGSYS-U, EGSYS-M, and OESIL risk scores for syncope evaluation are introduced, evaluated retrospectively, and their ability to classify cardiac syncopes is compared. The specificity and sensitivity of the scores were analyzed. Guidelines for the practical application of the scoring systems are provided to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions.

Methods: Retrospectively, 153 patients with syncope admitted to the Faculty Hospital in Ostrava in the year 2008 were enrolled for scoring with the EGSYS and OESIL risk scores. The computed scores were assessed with respect to the diagnosed etiology of the syncope.

Results: For each score system, the hypothesis that there is no difference in the score between the cardiac and the non-cardiac group was rejected (all p-values below 0.0001). Strong correlation between the three score systems was shown (Spearman correlation coefficient: r = 0.71 p < 0.0001 for EGSYS-U and OESIL, r = 0.88 p < 0.0001 for EGSYS-U and EGSYS-M, r = 0.60 p < 0.0001 for EGSYS-M and OESIL). Sensitivity and specificity of the scores were computed and compared.

Conclusions: All three score systems were found capable of classifying cardiac syncopes, reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and improving syncope risk evaluation. EGSYS-U was recommended for emergency syncope management because it was found to have both high sensitivity and high specificity.

Keywords: Syncope, Cardiac Syncope, EGSYS, OESIL, Emergency Department, Decision-Making, Syncope Management Unit

Received: August 14, 2009; Accepted: March 17, 2010; Published: June 1, 2010  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Plasek, J., Doupal, V., Fürstova, J., & Martinek, A. (2010). THE EGSYS AND OESIL RISK SCORES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF CARDIAC ETIOLOGY OF SYNCOPE: COMPARISON, REVALUATION, AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS. Biomedical papers154(2), 169-173. doi: 10.5507/bp.2010.026
Download citation

References

  1. Brignole M, Alboni P, Bendit DG, Bergfeldt L, Blanc JJ, Bloch Thomsen PE et al. Task Force on Syncope, European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope, Update 2004. Europace 2004; 15: 3539.
  2. Soteriades ES, Evans JC, Larson MG, Chen MH, Chen L, Benjamin EJ et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 878885. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Brignole M, Disertoni M, Menozzi C, Raviele A, Alboni P, Pitzalis MV et al. Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study (EGSYS) group. Management of syncope referred urgently to general hospitals with and without syncope units. Europace 2003; 5: 293298. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Kenny RA, OShea D, Walker HF. Impact of a dedicated syncope and falls facility for older adults on emergency beds. Age Ageing 2002; 31: 272275. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Shen WK, Decker WW, Smars PA, Goyal DG, Walker AE, Hodge DO et al. Syncope Evaluation in the Emergency Department Study (SEEDS): A multidisciplinary approach to syncope management. Circulation 2004; 14: 36363645. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, Guido V, Imperoli G, Santini M et al. OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. Development and prospective validation of risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 811819. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Sheldon R, Rose S, Connolly S, Ritchie D, Koshman ML, Frenneaux M et al. Diagnostic criteria for vasovagal syncope based on a quantitative history. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 344350. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, Sellers KL, Kohn MA, Wells GA. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patiens with short-term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004; 43: 224232. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Brignole M et al. Syncope Unit Project. 2006 Nov available from http://www.aiac.it/upload/documenti/redazione_medici/ DOC20061111_9614421.doc [cited 2009, June 15],[about 17 p.]
  10. Del Rosso A, Ungar A, Maggi R, Giada F, Petix NR, De Santo T, et al. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Heart 2008; 94: 1620-1626. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Calkins H, Shyr Y, Frumin H, Schork A, Morady F. The value of the clinical history in the differentiation of syncope due to ventricular tachycardia, atrioventricular block and neurocardiogenic syncope. Am J Med 1995; 98: 365373. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Sarasin FP, Hanusa BH, Perneger T, Louis-Simonet M, Rajeswaran A, Kapoor WN. A risk score to predict arrhytmias in patients with unexplained syncope. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10: 13121317. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Del Rosso A, Alboni P, Brignole M, Menozzi C, Raviele A. Relation of clinical presentation of syncope to the age of patients. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96: 14311435. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...