Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 52, Issue 2 , Pages 151-159, August 2008

Failure to Validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an Independent Emergency Department Population

Presented as an abstract at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, May 2007, Chicago, IL.

Department of Emergency, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.

Received 20 June 2007; received in revised form 24 September 2007 and 30 October 2007; accepted 3 December 2007. published online 18 February 2008.

Study objective

We conduct a prospective independent validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to identify emergency department (ED) syncope patients with short-term serious outcomes.

Methods

This was a prospective observational cohort study of adult patients presenting to a university hospital ED with acute syncope or near syncope. Patients meeting inclusion criteria as defined in the San Francisco Syncope Rule derivation were evaluated for 5 previously derived predictor variables: abnormal ECG result, shortness of breath, hematocrit level less than 30%, triage systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, and history of congestive heart failure. Hospital admission occurred at the discretion of the emergency physician, independent of the decision rule. Follow-up occurred through contact with the inpatient attending physician for admitted patients and by telephone contact with patients not hospitalized or those hospitalized and discharged before day 7. Predetermined outcome measures as defined by the San Francisco Syncope Rule were death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage, or any condition causing or likely to cause a return ED visit and hospitalization for a related event.

Results

Complete predictor and follow-up data were available for 713 of 743 (96%) enrolled patients. Sixty-one of 713 (9%) patients met predetermined criteria for serious outcome. Sixteen of 61 (26%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 16% to 39%) patients with a serious outcome were not identified as high risk by the rule. Rule performance to predict serious outcomes was sensitivity 74% (95% CI 61% to 84%), specificity 57% (95% CI 53% to 61%); negative likelihood ratio 0.5 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) and positive likelihood ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.0).

Conclusion

In this independent validation study, sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio of the San Francisco Syncope Rule were substantially lower than reported in the original studies and suggest that the rule has limited generalizability.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: Robert Silbergleit, MD

 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement.

 Author contributions: AB, DE, PB, and EJG conceived the study and designed the trial. DE and AW supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. AB, DE, and AW managed the data, including quality control. PB provided statistical advice on study design and data analysis. AB analyzed the data. AB drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. AB takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

 Publication dates: Available online February 20, 2008.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(07)01858-6

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.12.007

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 52, Issue 2 , Pages 151-159, August 2008