Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria

  • Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy (a1) (a2), Erik P. Hess (a3), Ekaterina Turko (a1), My-Linh Tran (a2), George A. Wells (a3) and Ian G. Stiell (a1) (a2) (a3)...

Abstract

Background:

Previous studies have indicated that the sub-optimal performance of the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) is likely due to the misclassification of the “abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG)” variable. We sought to identify specific emergency department (ED) ECG and cardiac monitor abnormalities that better predict cardiac outcomes within 30 days in adult ED syncope patients.

Methods:

This health records review included patients 16 years or older with syncope and excluded patients with ongoing altered mental status, alcohol or illicit drug use, seizure, head injury leading to loss of consciousness, or severe trauma requiring admission. We collected patient characteristics, 22 ECG variables, cardiac monitoring abnormalities, SFSR “abnormal ECG” criteria, and outcome (death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, or cardiac procedures) data. Recursive partitioning was used to develop the “Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria.”

Results:

Among 505 included patient visits, 27 (5.3%) had serious cardiac outcomes. We found that patients were at risk for cardiac outcomes within 30 days if any of the following were present: second-degree Mobitz type 2 or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, bundle branch block with first-degree AV block, right bundle branch with left anterior or posterior fascicular block, new ischemic changes, nonsinus rhythm, left axis deviation, or ED cardiac monitor abnormalities. The sensitivity and specificity of the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria were 96% (95% CI 80–100) and 76% (95% CI 75–76), respectively.

Conclusion:

We successfully identified specific ED ECG and cardiac monitor abnormalities, which we termed the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria, that predict serious cardiac outcomes in adult ED syncope patients. Further studies are required to identify which adult ED syncope patients require cardiac monitoring in the ED and the optimal duration of monitoring and to confirm the accuracy of these criteria.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, 6th Floor, Room F655, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9; vthirug@ohri.ca.

References

Hide All
1.Blanc, JJ, L’Her, C, Touiza, A, et al. Prospective evaluation and outcome of patients admitted for syncope over a 1 year period. Eur Heart J 2002;23:815–20, doi:10.1053/euhj.2001.2975.
2.Sarasin, FP, Louis-Simonet, M, Carballo, D, et al. Prospective evaluation of patients with syncope: a population-based study. Am J Med 2001;111:177–84, doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00797-5.
3.Sun, BC, Emond, JA, Camargo, CA Jr.Characteristics and admission patterns of patients presenting with syncope to U.S. emergency departments, 1992–2000. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1029–34.
4.Quinn, JV, Stiell, IG, McDermott, DA, et al. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with shortterm serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43:224–32, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00823-0.
5.Quinn, J, McDermott, D, Stiell, I, et al. Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2006;47:448–54, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.11.019.
6.Birnbaum, A, Esses, D, Bijur, P, et al. Failure to validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an independent emergency department population. Ann Emerg Med 2008;52:151–9, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.12.007.
7.Sun, BC, Mangione, CM, Merchant, G, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:420–7, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.11.012.
8.Wasson, JH, Sox, HC, Neff, RK, et al. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 1985;313:793–9, doi:10.1056/NEJM198509263131306.
9.Stiell, IG, Wells, GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:437–47, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70309-4.
10.Laupacis, A, Sekar, N, Stiell, IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277:488–94, doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540300056034.
11.Thiruganasambandamoorthy, V, Hess, EP, Alreesi, A, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Canadian setting. Ann Emerg Med 2010;55:464–72, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.10.001.
12.Colivicchi, F, Ammirati, F, Melina, D, et al. OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J 2003;24:811–9, doi:10.1016/S0195-668X(02)00827-8.
13.Martin, TP, Hanusa, BH, Kapoor, WN. Risk stratification of patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 1997;29:459–66, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(97)70217-8.
14.Sarasin, FP, Hanusa, BH, Perneger, T, et al. A risk score to predict arrhythmias in patients with unexplained syncope. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:1312–7, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00003.x.
15.Cosgriff, TM, Kelly, AM, Kerr, D. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Australian context. CJEM 2007;9:157–61.
16.Pezzullo, JC. Interactive statistics page. 2-Way contingency table analysis. Available at: http://www.statpages.org/ctab2x2.html.
17.Hanley, JA, McNeil, BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839–43.
18.Gilbert, EH, Lowenstein, SR, Koziol-McLain, J, et al. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:305–8, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70264-0.
19.Worster, A, Bledsoe, RD, Cleve, P, et al. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:448–51, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.11.021.
20.Badcock, D, Kelly, AM, Kerr, D, et al. The quality of medical record review studies in the international emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:444–7, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.11.011.
21.Lowenstein, SR. Medical record reviews in emergency medicine: the blessing and the curse. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:452–5, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.01.032.
22.Lasser, RP, Haft, JI, Friedberg, CK. Relationship of right bundle-branch block and marked left axis deviation (with left parietal or peri-infarction block) to complete heart block and syncope. Circulation 1968;37:429–37.
23.Tabrizi, F, Rosenqvist, M, Bergfeldt, L, et al. Time relation between a syncopal event and documentation of atrioventricular block in patients with bifascicular block: clinical implications. Cardiology 2007;108:138–43, doi:10.1159/000096038.
24.Huff, JS, Decker, WW, Quinn, JV, et al. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:431–44, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.02.001.
25.Moya, A, Sutton, R, Ammirati, F, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009;30:2631–71, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp290.
26.Grossman, SA, Fischer, C, Lipsitz, LA, et al. Predicting adverse outcomes in syncope. J Emerg Med 2007;33:233–9, doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.04.001.
27.Reed, MJ, Newby, DE, Coull, AJ, et al. The Risk stratification Of Syncope in the Emergency department (ROSE) pilot study: a comparison of existing syncope guidelines. Emerg Med J 2007;24:270–5, doi:10.1136/emj.2006.042739.
28.Byrt, T. How good is that agreement? Epidemiology 1996;7:561.
29.Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74, doi:10.2307/2529310.

Keywords

Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: the Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria

  • Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy (a1) (a2), Erik P. Hess (a3), Ekaterina Turko (a1), My-Linh Tran (a2), George A. Wells (a3) and Ian G. Stiell (a1) (a2) (a3)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed