Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:38:51.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acute myocardial infarction in patients with syncope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Daniel McDermott ,
James V. Quinn  and
Charles E. Murphy
Daniel McDermott*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.
James V. Quinn
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif.
Charles E. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.
*
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave., Box 0208, San Francisco CA 94143-0208; dmcderm@medicine.ucsf.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

We sought to determine the incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in emergency department (ED) patients with syncope, the characteristics of these AMIs and how helpful the initial electrocardiogram (ECG) was in identifying these cases.

Methods:

In a prospective cohort of consecutive patients with syncope, the initial ECG was found to be abnormal using a prespecified definition (any nonsinus rhythm or any new or age-indeterminate abnormalities). Patients were then followed up to identify an AMI diagnosed within 30 days of presentation.

Results:

There were 1474 consecutive patient visits for syncope or near-syncope over a 45-month period spanning from Jul. 1, 2000, to Feb. 28, 2002, and Jul. 15, 2002, to Aug. 31, 2004, of which 46 (3.1%) were diagnosed with AMI. The majority of the AMI patients (42) had no ST segment elevation. The initial ECG was abnormal in 37 out of 46 cases. The diagnostic performance of the initial ECG was sensitivity 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67%–89%), specificity 64% (95% CI 61%–67%), negative predictive value 99% (95% CI 98%–100%), positive predictive value 7% (95% CI 6%–8%), positive likelihood ratio 2.2 (95% CI 1.6–2.5) and negative likelihood ratio 0.3 (95% CI 0.2–0.5).

Conclusion:

The incidence of AMI in patients presenting with syncope is low. A normal ECG has a high negative predictive value, although its sensitivity is limited.

Keywords

syncopemyocardial infarctionelectrocardiogram
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , March 2009 , pp. 156 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2009

References

1.Quinn, J, Stiell, I, McDermott, D, et al. Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2006;47:448–54.Google Scholar
2.Quinn, JV, Stiell, IG, McDermott, DA, et al. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43:224–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Colivicchi, F, Ammirati, F, Melina, D, et al. 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.Google Scholar
4.Soteriades, ES, Evans, JC, Larson, MG, et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope. N Engl J Med 2002;347:878–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Kapoor, WN, Karpf, M, Wieand, S, et al. A prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with syncope. N Engl J Med 1983;309:197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Sun, BC, Emond, JA, Camargo, CA Jr.Direct medical costs of syncope-related hospitalizations in the United States. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:668–71.Google Scholar
7.Martin, TP, Hanusa, BH, Kapoor, WN. Risk stratification of patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 1997;(29):459–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Quinn, J, McDermott, DA, Kramer, N, et al. Death after emergency department visits for syncope: How common and can it be predicted? Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:585–90.Google Scholar
10.Quinn, J, Durski, K. A real-time tracking, notification, and web-based enrollment system for emergency department research. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1245–8.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Quinn, JV, Kramer, N, McDermott, DA. Validation of the Social Security Death Index (SSDI): an important readily-available outcomes database for researchers. WESTJEM 2008;9:6–8.Google Scholar
12.Georgeson, S, Linzer, M, Griffith, JL, et al. Acute cardiac ischemia in patients with syncope. J Gen Intern Med 1992;7:379–86.Google Scholar
13.Link, MS, Lauer, EP, Homoud, MK, et al. Low yield rule out myocardial infarction protocol in patients with syncope. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:706–7.Google Scholar
14.Sun, BC, Mangione, CM, Merchant, G, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:420–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.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.Google Scholar
16.Brignole, M, Alboni, P, Benditt, DG, et al. Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope — update 2004. Executive Summary. Eur Heart J 2004;25:2054–72.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Linzer, M, Yang, EH, Estes, NA III, et al. Diagnosing syncope. Part 2: unexplained syncope. Clinical efficacy assessment project of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:76–86.Google Scholar