Robert Allen, Ian S deSouza, Abel Wakai, Rebekah Richards, Amelie Ardilouze, Eric Dunne, Isidora Rovic, Roshanak Benabbas, Shariar Zehtabchi, Richard Sinert
{"title":"Hospitalize or discharge the emergency department patient with syncope? A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.","authors":"Robert Allen, Ian S deSouza, Abel Wakai, Rebekah Richards, Amelie Ardilouze, Eric Dunne, Isidora Rovic, Roshanak Benabbas, Shariar Zehtabchi, Richard Sinert","doi":"10.1111/acem.15111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Syncope is a frequent reason for hospitalization from the emergency department (ED), but the benefit of hospitalization is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the potential benefit of hospitalization for ED syncope patients for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a SRMA according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) framework: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope (population), does hospitalization (intervention) or direct ED discharge (comparison) improve short-term outcomes (outcome)? The primary outcome was a composite of all adverse events as defined by individual studies, up to 30 days. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We measured heterogeneity among included studies with I-squared statistic and used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search strategy identified 2140 publications and included 18 publications (510,545 participants) in the analysis. All studies reported higher rates of adverse events in hospitalized patients (0.7%-43.8%) compared to discharged patients (0%-3.7%). Our meta-analysis detected considerable statistical heterogeneity. The GRADE assessment for all adverse events and all-cause mortality revealed risk ratios of >5 favoring ED discharge for both outcomes at a median follow-up of 30 days. However, point estimates are limited by serious risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to the uncertainty of the available evidence, this SRMA's findings do not support a recommendation for or against hospitalizing patients presenting to ED with syncope. However, discharging low-risk patients with syncope from the ED is associated with a low risk of short-term adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Syncope is a frequent reason for hospitalization from the emergency department (ED), but the benefit of hospitalization is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the potential benefit of hospitalization for ED syncope patients for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.
Methods: We conducted a SRMA according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) framework: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope (population), does hospitalization (intervention) or direct ED discharge (comparison) improve short-term outcomes (outcome)? The primary outcome was a composite of all adverse events as defined by individual studies, up to 30 days. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We measured heterogeneity among included studies with I-squared statistic and used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence.
Results: Our search strategy identified 2140 publications and included 18 publications (510,545 participants) in the analysis. All studies reported higher rates of adverse events in hospitalized patients (0.7%-43.8%) compared to discharged patients (0%-3.7%). Our meta-analysis detected considerable statistical heterogeneity. The GRADE assessment for all adverse events and all-cause mortality revealed risk ratios of >5 favoring ED discharge for both outcomes at a median follow-up of 30 days. However, point estimates are limited by serious risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias.
Conclusions: Due to the uncertainty of the available evidence, this SRMA's findings do not support a recommendation for or against hospitalizing patients presenting to ED with syncope. However, discharging low-risk patients with syncope from the ED is associated with a low risk of short-term adverse events.
期刊介绍:
Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine.
The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more.
Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.