Key result
San Francisco Syncope Rule ECG criteria predict ED cardiac outcomes with ~86% sensitivity.
Why the study?
The sensitivity and specificity of the San Francisco Syncope Rule ECG criteria for predicting cardiac outcomes in syncope patients were not well defined.
Do the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) ECG criteria predict cardiac outcomes in emergency department patients with syncope?
Cohort (n=684)
Do the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) ECG criteria predict cardiac outcomes in emergency department patients with syncope?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 86% (95% CI 71-94)
The SFSR ECG criteria, specifically any nonsinus rhythm or left bundle conduction problem, are highly sensitive and have a high negative predictive value for identifying ED syncope patients at risk for adverse cardiac outcomes.
SFSR ECG criteria show moderate sensitivity for cardiac outcomes in ED syncope; leaves open need for prospective validation of nonsinus rhythm and bundle branch findings before routine use.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) electrocardiogram (ECG) criteria for determining cardiac outcomes and to define the specific ECG findings that are the most important in patients with syncope. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with syncope or near syncope was considered. The treating emergency physicians assessed 50 predictor variables, including an ECG and rhythm assessment. For the ECG assessment, the physicians were asked to categorize the ECG as normal or abnormal based on any changes that were old or new. They also did a separate rhythm assessment and could use any of the ECGs or available monitoring strips, including prehospital strips, when making this assessment. All patients were followed up to determine a broad composite study outcome. The final ECG criterion for the SFSR was any nonsinus rhythm or new ECG changes. In this specific study, the initial assessments in the database were used to determine only cardiac-related outcomes (arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, structural, sudden death) based on set criteria, and the authors determined the sensitivity and specificity of the ECG criteria for cardiac outcomes only. All ECGs classified as "abnormal" by the study criteria were compared to the official cardiology reading to determine specific findings on the ECG. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to determine important specific ECG and rhythm findings. RESULTS: A total of 684 consecutive patients were considered, with 218 having positive ECG criteria and 42 (6%) having important cardiac outcomes. ECG criteria predicted 36 of 42 patients with cardiac outcomes, with a sensitivity of 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71% to 94%), a specificity of 70% (95% CI = 66% to 74%), and a negative predictive value of 99% (95% CI = 97% to 99%). Regarding specific ECG findings, any nonsinus rhythm from any source and any left bundle conduction problem (i.e., any left bundle branch block, left anterior fascicular block, left posterior fascicular block, or QRS widening) were 2.5 and 3.5 times more likely associated with significant cardiac outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The ECG criteria from the SFSR are relatively simple, and if used correctly can help predict which patients are at risk of cardiac outcomes. Furthermore, any left bundle branch block conduction problems or any nonsinus rhythms found during the ED stay should be especially concerning for physicians caring for patients presenting with syncope.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quinn et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in syncope or near syncope (n=684). San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) electrocardiogram (ECG) criteria was evaluated on cardiac-related outcomes (arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, structural, sudden death) (Sensitivity 86%, 95% CI 71-94). The San Francisco Syncope Rule ECG criteria predicted cardiac outcomes in ED patients with syncope with 86% sensitivity (95% CI 71-94%) and 70% specificity (95% CI 66-74%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: