Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Pulmonary Embolism Among Emergency Department Patients With Syncope: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

V. Thiruganasambandamoorthy, M. Sivilotti, B. Rowe, A. McRae, M. Mukarram, Susan Malveau, Annick N. Yagapen, Benjamin C. Sun et al.

Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2019

9,374 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

Study objective: The prevalence of pulmonary embolism among patients with syncope is understudied. In accordance with a recent study with an exceptionally high pulmonary embolism prevalence, some advocate evaluating all syncope patients for pulmonary embolism, including those with another clear cause for their syncope. We seek to evaluate the pulmonary embolism prevalence among emergency department (ED) patients with syncope. Methods: We combined data from 2 large prospective studies enrolling adults with syncope from 17 EDs in Canada and the United States. Each study collected the results of pulmonary embolism–related investigations (ie, D‐dimer, ventilation‐perfusion scan, or computed tomography [CT] pulmonary angiography) and 30‐day adjudicated outcomes: pulmonary embolism or nonpulmonary embolism outcome (arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, serious hemorrhage, and death). Results: Of the 9,374 patients enrolled, 9,091 (97.0%; median age 66 years, 51.9% women) with 30‐day follow‐up were analyzed: 547 (6.0%) were evaluated for pulmonary embolism (278 [3.1%] had D‐dimer, 39 [0.4%] had ventilation‐perfusion scan, and 347 [3.8%] had CT pulmonary angiography). Overall, 874 patients (9.6%) experienced 30‐day serious outcomes: 818 patients (9.0%) with nonpulmonary embolism serious outcomes and 56 (prevalence 0.6%; 95% confidence interval 0.5% to 0.8%) with pulmonary embolism (including 8 [0.2%] out of 3521 patients diagnosed during the index hospitalization and 7 [0.1%] diagnosed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 9,374 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