Defining abnormal electrocardiography in adult emergency department syncope patients: The Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria

Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 248-258

  Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Venkatesh ^a,b   Hess, Erik P ^a   Turko, Ekaterina ^a   Tran, My Linh ^b   Wells, George A ^a   Stiell, Ian G ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Arrhythmia; Cardiac; Electrocardiogram; Outcomes; Risk; Syncope

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR PROCEDURE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; COMPLETE HEART BLOCK; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY MONITORING; EMERGENCY WARD; FEMALE; FIRST DEGREE ATRIOVENTRICULAR BLOCK; HEART INFARCTION; HEART LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK; HEART MUSCLE ISCHEMIA; HEART RIGHT BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; OTTAWA ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC CRITERIA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAN FRANCISCO SYNCOPE RULE; SECOND DEGREE ATRIOVENTRICULAR BLOCK; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYNCOPE;

EID: 84864510621     PISSN: 14818035     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2310/8000.2012.110510     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Blanc JJ, L'Her C, Touiza A, et al. Prospective evaluation and outcome of patients admitted for syncope over a 1 year period. Eur Heart J 2002; 23: 815-20. doi: 10.1053/euhj. 2001.2975.
2. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00797-5.
3. Sun BC, Emond JA, Camargo CA Jr. Characteristics and admission patterns of patients presenting with syncope to U.S. emergency departments, 1992-2000. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 1029-34.
4. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00823-0.
5. Quinn J, McDermott D, Stiell I, et al. Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 47: 448-54. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.11.019.
6. Birnbaum A, Esses D, Bijur P, et al. Failure to validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an independent emergency department population. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 52: 151-9. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.12.007.
7. Sun BC, Mangione CM, Merchant G, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 49: 420-7. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed. 2006.11.012.
8. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, et al. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 793-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198509263131306.
9. Stiell IG, Wells GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 33: 437-47. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70309-4.
10. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997; 277: 488-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997. 03540300056034.
11. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Hess EP, Alreesi A, et al. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Canadian setting. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 55: 464-72. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.10.001.
12. Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, et al. OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0195-668X(02)00827-8.
13. Martin TP, Hanusa BH, Kapoor WN. Risk stratification of patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 1997; 29: 459-66. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(97)70217-8.
14. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712. 2003.tb00003.x.
15. Cosgriff TM, Kelly AM, Kerr D. External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in the Australian context. CJEM 2007; 9: 157-61.
16. Pezzullo JC. Interactive statistics page. 2-Way contingency table analysis. Available at: http: //www.statpages.org/ctab2x2.html.
17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-43.
18. Gilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 1996; 27: 305-8. doi: 10.1016/ S0196-0644(96)70264-0.
19. Worster A, Bledsoe RD, Cleve P, et al. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45: 448-51. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.11.021.
20. Badcock D, Kelly AM, Kerr D, et al. The quality of medical record review studies in the international emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45: 444-7. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.11.011.
21. Lowenstein SR. Medical record reviews in emergency medicine: the blessing and the curse. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45: 452-5. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.01.032.
22. Lasser RP, Haft JI, Friedberg CK. Relationship of right bundle-branch block and marked left axis deviation (with left parietal or peri-infarction block) to complete heart block and syncope. Circulation 1968; 37: 429-37.
23. Tabrizi F, Rosenqvist M, Bergfeldt L, et al. Time relation between a syncopal event and documentation of atrioven-tricular block in patients with bifascicular block: clinical implications. Cardiology 2007; 108: 138-43. doi: 10.1159/ 000096038.
24. Huff JS, Decker WW, Quinn JV, et al. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 49: 431-44. doi: 10.1016/ j.annemergmed.2007.02.001.
25. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2631-71. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp290.
26. Grossman SA, Fischer C, Lipsitz LA, et al. Predicting adverse outcomes in syncope. J Emerg Med 2007; 33: 233-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.04.001.
27. Reed MJ, Newby DE, Coull AJ, et al. The Risk stratification Of Syncope in the Emergency department (ROSE) pilot study: a comparison of existing syncope guidelines. Emerg Med J 2007; 24: 270-5. doi: 10.1136/emj.2006.042739.
28. Byrt T. How good is that agreement? Epidemiology 1996; 7: 561.
29. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74. doi: 10.2307/2529310.