Evidence Hub

Predictors of Clinically Significant Echocardiography Findings in Older Adults with Syncope: A Secondary Analysis

Probst MA, Gibson TA, Weiss RE, Yagapen AN, Malveau SE, Adler DH, Bastani A, Baugh CW et al.

Journal of hospital medicine, 2018

3,686 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND Syncope is a common reason for visiting the emergency department (ED) and is associated with significant healthcare resource utilization. OBJECTIVE To develop a risk-stratification tool for clinically significant findings on echocardiography among older adults presenting to the ED with syncope or near-syncope. DESIGN Prospective, observational cohort study from April 2013 to September 2016 SETTING Eleven EDs in the United States PATIENTS We enrolled adults (≥60 years) who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope who underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was a clinically significant finding on TTE. Clinical, electrocardiogram, and laboratory variables were also collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of significant findings on echocardiography. RESULTS A total of 3,686 patients were enrolled. Of these, 995 (27%) received echocardiography, and 215 (22%) had a significant finding on echocardiography. Regression analysis identified five predictors of significant findings: (1) history of congestive heart failure, (2) history of coronary artery disease, (3) abnormal electrocardiogram, (4) high-sensitivity troponin-T >14 pg/mL, and 5) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide >125 pg/mL. These five variables make up the ROMEO (Risk Of Major Echocardiography findings in Older adults with syncope) criteria. The sensitivity of a ROMEO score of zero for excluding significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,686 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free