Article, Emergency Medicine

Prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope

a b s t r a c t

Objectives: A recent study reported a high prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) among patients admitted with syncope. We sought to determine whether these findings were validated in our patient population.

Methods: We performed a retrospective, secondary analysis of prospectively gathered data from patients pre-

senting with syncope to an academic emergency department (ED) from July 2010 to December 2015. We ana- lyzed baseline information from the time of the ED visit, recorded outcomes during the hospital stay, and contacted patients by phone at least 30 days after the ED visit. The primary study outcome was the diagnosis of acute PE in the ED, during inpatient admission or ED observation unit stay, or by patient report over a 30- day follow-up period.

Results: Over the 5.5-year study period, 348 Patients with syncope agreed to participate in the study. 52% of pa- tients were female [95% confidence interval (CI): 46.6-57.4] and the average age was 48.4 years. Of the enrolled patients, 50.1% (CI: 44.8-55.2) underwent further evaluation for syncope beyond the ED stay: 27% (CI: 22.6-31.9) of patients were admitted to an Inpatient unit for further work-up and 23.9% (CI: 19.7-28.6) of patients were placed in the ED observation unit. The overall rate of PE among patients presenting to the ED with syncope was 1.4% (CI: 0.6-3.3%). 2 patients (0.6%, CI: 0.2-2.1) were diagnosed with a PE while in the ED. None of the pa- tients were diagnosed with a PE during hospital admission or the observation stay associated with the index ED visit. 3 patients (0.9%, CI: 0.3-2.5) reported they had been diagnosed with a PE during the 30 days following their ED visit, two of whom had been admitted to the hospital at the index ED visit but were not diagnosed with a PE at that time. All patients diagnosed with a PE at the time of the ED visit or during the follow-up period were Pulmo- nary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) positive and reported shortness of breath in the ED. Conclusion: In contrast to a previous study, our findings do not support a high rate of PE among ED patients pre- senting with syncope.

(C) 2017

Introduction

Syncope is one of the more common reasons for emergency depart- ment (ED) visits, comprising 1-3% of ED visits [1-3]. Syncope is defined as transient loss of consciousness due to global Cerebral hypoperfusion characterized by rapid onset, Short duration, and spontaneous Complete recovery [4-5]. Causes of syncope include neurally mediated syncope such as vasovagal or situational syncope, syncope from orthostatic hy- potension, and Cardiac syncope such as from arrhythmia, structural heart disease or pulmonary embolism (PE) [6].

? Meetings: Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, May 16-19, 2017.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Frizell).

As a potential etiology of syncope, PE carries a high morbidity and mortality, but few studies have evaluated the prevalence of PE in patients with syncope. In an effort to better understand the prev- alence of PE in patients presenting with syncope, one recent study of patients presenting with syncope evaluated all patients for PE as a cause of their syncopal episodes. This study found that nearly one in six patients admitted with first-time syncope had a PE [7]. The authors’ findings contrasted with several previous studies which noted a much lower incidence of PE in patients with syncope [8-17].

In our study, we sought to evaluate data from our ED to determine the prevalence of PE in patients presenting with syncope. We hy- pothesized that, in contrast to this previous study, our findings would not support a high rate of PE among ED patients presenting with syncope.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.090

0735-6757/(C) 2017

254 A. Frizell et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 36 (2018) 253256

Methods

Study design and setting

This was a retrospective analysis of a pre-existing data set gathered on patients presenting to the University of (Utah) ED from July 2010 to December 2015. The data set includes prospectively gathered data on patients presenting to the ED with syncope, including baseline informa- tion, outcomes of ED testing and inPatient evaluation, and 30-day follow-up by telephone and chart review. The University of Utah Institu- tional Review Board approved the study.

The University of Utah ED is an urban, academic ED located in Salt Lake City with approximately 40,000 patient visits per year. Clinical pro- tocols do not exist at the University of Utah ED which mandate testing for PE in patients presenting to the ED with syncope, with testing for PE performed at the treating clinician’s discretion. The University of Utah’s ED observation unit (EDOU) includes a protocol for the evalua- tion of patients with syncope. Specific aspects of the EDOU syncope pro- tocol include Telemetry monitoring, transthoracic echocardiogram, and arrangement of outpatient Holter monitoring.

Selection of participants

We prospectively enrolled patients over the 5.5-year study period from July 2010 through December 2015. Research associates were pres- ent in the ED seven days a week between 8 am and midnight. Given that research associates receive undergraduate course credit for their partic- ipation, they were not present in the ED on university holidays nor dur- ing semester breaks. They identified ED patients with potential syncope based on the triage chief complaint and approached these patients early in the ED stay to obtain consent for study participation. They then con- firmed with patients that they had experienced a recent syncopal event by asking the following question: “Have you passed out (been unre- sponsive) in the past 24 hours?” Individuals who answered “no” to this question were not included in the study. We excluded patients under the age of 18 years old, prisoners, and individuals who were not capable of providing consent for study participation. Additional reasons not to be included in the study were patient refusal to participate in the study, failure to report a syncopal event within the past 24 h, or inability to complete the survey with the patient due to additional testing proce- dures or lack of time. Research associates recorded the number of pa- tients screened for study enrollment, but they did not record specific reasons for the failure to complete the study enrollment and required information.

Methods and measurements

Research associates administered a standard questionnaire to obtain baseline information at the time of the ED visit, including demographic information, current symptoms, and past medical history. Research as- sociates also recorded patient vital signs, laboratory and Imaging results, interventions performed in the ED and disposition. We calculated the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria utilizing patient-report- ed risk factors and ED vital sign measurements at the time of ED triage [18].

We collected and managed study data using REDCap, an electronic data capture tool hosted at the University of Utah [19]. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies, providing:

An intuitive interface for validated data entry;
  • Audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures;
  • Automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to com- mon statistical packages; and
  • Procedures for importing data from external sources.
  • Information obtained in the baseline survey was not shared with ED providers and these providers may not have even known that their pa- tients had been enrolled in the study. Providers were blinded to study aims and had no knowledge that we would be looking at PE outcomes among patients with syncope.

    For patients placed in the EDOU or admitted to an inpatient unit, re- search associates recorded results of testing and patient outcomes. Ad- ditionally, research associates attempted to contact patients by telephone at least 30 days after the ED visit to inquire about any repeat ED visits or hospitalizations, follow up with a primary care provider, and any additional testing performed or diagnoses beyond those identified during the initial encounter. For patients not contacted by telephone, we reviewed the medical record and noted any significant events or di- agnoses during the 30 days after the ED visit.

    Outcomes

    The primary study outcome was the diagnosis of acute PE in the ED, during inpatient admission or ED observation unit stay, or by patient re- port over a 30-day follow-up period. We documented the diagnosis of PE based on a positive result of CTPA or VQ scan testing for PE. We uti- lized both outcomes of ED/inpatient testing and the 30-day follow-up period as we felt that a PE which was clinically relevant in leading to a syncopal event would likely manifest itself during a 30-day window if it had not been identified during the Initial ED encounter.

    Analysis

    We performed data analysis utilizing descriptive statistics with data presented as percentages for categorical variables and means for contin- uous variables. We evaluated differences between groups of categorical variables utilizing the Pearson’s chi-square test and differences between continuous variables using Student’s t-test. We present results using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with a p-value less 0.05 considered statistically significant. We performed analysis using STATA version 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) and VassarStats Website for Statistical Computation (vassarstats.net).

    Results

    Patient characteristics

    Over the 5.5-year study period, research associates screened 778 po- tential syncope patients for enrollment in the study. Of these patients, 348 ED patients reported a syncopal event within the preceding 24 h and agreed to participate in the study. Of the study patients, 52% were female (CI: 46.6-57.4) and the average age was 48.4 years (range: 18-92 years). Study patients reported their race/ethnicity as White non-Hispanic (79.3%, CI: 74.8-83.2), Hispanic (8.3%, CI: 5.9-

    11.7), Black (3.2%, CI:1.8-5.6), Native American (2%, CI: 1-4.1), Pacific

    Islander (0.9%, CI: 0.3-2.5), Asian (0.9%, CI:0.3-2.5), and Other (5.4%,

    CI: 3.5-8.4). When asked if they had a previous history of PE or Deep vein thrombosis , 15.8% of patients answered “yes” (CI: 12.3- 20). Additional notable baseline clinical characteristics included report- ed rates of shortness of breath (54.3%, CI: 49.1-59.5), chest pain (49.1%, CI: 43.9-54.4), and Calf pain/swelling (17%, CI: 13.4-21.3).

    PE diagnosis during initial visit

    We evaluated rates of PE among study patients. While in the ED, 22.7% (CI: 18.6-27.4) of patients underwent testing for PE: 9.8% (CI: 7.1-13.3) had D-dimer testing while 16.7% (CI: 13.1-21) had CTPA or VQ scan to evaluate for PE (3.8% had a positive d-dimer followed by CTPA or VQ scan, CI: 2.2-6.3). Two patients (0.6%, CI: 0.2-2.1) were di- agnosed with a PE in the ED.

    Frizell et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 36 (2018) 253256 255

    Of the study patients, 50.1% (CI: 44.8-55.2) underwent further hos- pital evaluation for syncope beyond the ED stay: 27% (CI: 22.6-31.9) of patients were admitted to an inpatient unit for further work-up and 23.9% (CI: 19.7-28.6) of patients were placed in the ED observation unit. None of the patients was diagnosed with a PE during hospital ad- mission or the observation stay associated with the index ED visit.

    PE diagnosis during follow-up

    We performed telephone follow-up to evaluate for the diagnosis of PE during the 30 days after the ED visit. Our overall telephone follow- up rate was 68.4% (CI: 63.3-73.1), and the average time from the ED visit to telephone contact was 56.9 days (CI: 50.5-63.3). For patients whom we could not contact by telephone, we reviewed the EMR for any significant events during the 30 days following the ED visit. We later compared clinical characteristics of patients contacted by tele- phone and those who were not contacted by phone to evaluate for po- tential bias in follow-up data. Patients contacted by phone were similar to those not contacted by phone in gender (percent female: 52.1% vs. 51.8%, p = 0.961), those who were PERC positive (82.3% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.109), those who reported a previous PE or DVT (16% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.903), and rates of hypoxia (triage oxygen saturation b 95%: 24.8% vs. 20%, p = 0.326). Patients who were contacted by phone were slightly older than those not contacted by phone:

    49.8 years vs. 45.4 years (p = 0.040).

    At the time of telephone follow-up, 3 patients (0.9%, CI: 0.3-2.5) re- ported they had been diagnosed with a PE during the 30 days following their ED visit for syncope. One patient reported being diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction at an outside hospital one week after the ED visit, followed by a two-day hospitalization at this hospital. This patient, who was low risk by Wells’ Criteria (score = 1.5), had a negative D-dimer during the index ED visit and was discharged from the ED. A second patient reported a PE approxi- mately three weeks after the ED visit followed by two-day hospitaliza- tion. This patient did not have PE testing in the ED but had been admitted to an inpatient unit for further evaluation of syncope. A third patient reported a pulmonary embolism diagnosed after the ED visit but did not provide additional detail. These patients had a negative CTPA in the ED and had been admitted to an inpatient unit at the time of the ED stay. In none of these cases of self-reported PE were we able to verify the diagnosis of PE utilizing our EMR (Fig.1).

    Fig. 1. Flow chart for the diagnosis of PE among ED patients with syncope.

    Overall rate of PE diagnosis

    Based on the PE diagnoses in the ED and the self-reported PE diagno- ses during the 30-day follow-up period, our overall rate of PE among pa- tients presenting with syncope was 1.4% (95% CI: 0.6-3.3%). All patients with PE reported shortness of breath at the time of the ED visit in addi- tion to syncope, and all were PERC positive. Two of the five patients reported calf pain or swelling and one reported a previous history of a PE or DVT. In the cases of the two patients for whom we had objective results for CTPA performed in the ED, both had large PEs involving the main pulmonary arteries.

    Discussion

    Our study evaluated data collected at the time of ED visit, during hospitalization, and at a 30-day phone follow-up to determine the prev- alence of PE in patients presenting with syncope. We found a low prev- alence of PE in our population, with a rate of 1.4% among patients presenting to the ED with a syncopal event in the preceding 24 h. Two patients were diagnosed during their ED visit and the other three pa- tients reported being diagnosed with a PE during the 30 days following their ED visit. Interestingly, no patients were diagnosed with PE while admitted as an inpatient or during their stay in the observation unit. All patients diagnosed with a PE at their ED visit or during the 30-day follow-up period were PERC positive and reported dyspnea in the ED.

    The low prevalence of pulmonary embolism among our patients with syncope contrasts with that reported in a recent study by Prandoni et al. This may be partly due to methodological differences between our studies. In the Prandoni study, all patients underwent a systematic work-up for PE regardless of their symptoms. In our study, the work- up for both PE and syncope was at the discretion of the provider. We did not differentiate between patients with first-time or repeated syn- copal events, unlike the Prandoni study. In the Prandoni study, syncope was defined as “a transient loss of consciousness with rapid onset, short duration (i.e., b 1 minute), and spontaneous resolution, with obvious causes such as Epileptic seizure, stroke, and head trauma ruled out.” In our study, patients with syncope were identified by a positive response to the question “Have you passed out (been unresponsive) in the past 24 hours?” This may not have excluded trauma or seizure patients as the Prandoni study did. We also included 30-day follow-up to deter- mine if patients had been diagnosed with PE shortly after their hospital- ization [7].

    Notably, the Prandoni study was performed in Italian medical centers. The work-up for PE and diagnosis occurred while patients were admitted to an inpatient unit, not during their ED stay. In contrast, in our study both patients who were diagnosed with PE during their hospitalization were diagnosed in the ED, not during their admission or EDOU stay. It may be that the expectation for the extent of the eval- uation in the ED versus inpatient units differs between the medical cen- ters in these two studies. Our findings are more consistent with previously reported literature regarding the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients presenting with syncope, but still demonstrated a lower prevalence than some of these previous studies [8-17].

    While not all patients underwent a work-up for PE, we did contact 68.4% of patients 30 days after their ED visit to determine if PE was diag- nosed in the subsequent time period. Only three patients reported being diagnosed with a PE in the 30 days following their ED visit, two of whom had been admitted to the hospital at their index visit but had not been diagnosed during that admission. We did not confirm any of these PE di- agnoses in our medical record through chart review, so we were limited in being able to characterize the exact nature of the PE or to corroborate the patient’s report of this new diagnosis. Given this low number of PEs reported during follow-up, we concluded that the diagnosis of PE was infrequently missed despite the fact that not all patients underwent a systematic work-up. However, given that we were unable to contact al- most 32% of study patients by phone, it is possible that an additional

    256 A. Frizell et al. / American Journal of Emergency Medicine 36 (2018) 253256

    number of patients had PE which we did not note in the medical record review for these patients.

    Lastly, it is difficult to determine causation between PE and syncope, even in patients where PE was confirmed on imaging. The mechanism of syncope from PE is thought to be due to the sudden obstruction of the most proximal pulmonary arteries which leads to a drop in cardiac output, precipitating cerebral hypoperfusion [3-4]. Therefore, it would seem that only proximal PEs should result in syncope. Both cases of ED-diagnosed PE in our study were proximal PEs, and in these cases the relationship between the PE and the patient’s syncopal event would seem plausible. However, in the case of the patients who report- ed PE during the 30-day follow-up period, we are unable to comment on the nature of the PE and the potential relationship to the syncopal event they reported upon arrival to the ED.

    Additional limitations in our study warrant comment. Our study was limited to a single center, and thus our findings may be unique to this center, to the PE and syncope work-ups which are performed at this site, and to the nature of our patient population. While we feel confident in the outcomes related to the ED visit, hospitalization, and the EDOU stay, we were unable to perform 30-day telephone follow-up with 32% of study patients and may have missed significant events due to this. While we attempted to mitigate this effect through review of the medical records of these individuals to note 30-day events documented in our EMR, we also recognize that the three individuals who reported PE during the follow-up period did not have these in our EMR and pre- sumably had these diagnoses outside of our medical system. Patients contacted by phone were slightly older than those whom we were unable to contact, but we did not otherwise find significant differences between these two groups. Given that these groups did not differ signif- icantly in their demographics or risk factor profiles, we would not ex- pect a disproportionate number of missed PEs in the group we were unable to contact by phone, but we still may have missed several signif- icant outcomes.

    The low number of enrolled patients with PE over the 5.5-year study period presents an additional limitation. Our enrollment was limited by the RA coverage hours in the ED and by the study exclusion criteria. Given previous reports suggesting that syncope visits comprise 1-3% of ED visits, and given our ED volume of 40,000 patients per year, we would expect to have had at least 2000 patients with syncope in our ED over the enrollment period. RAs enrolled fewer than half of the 778 patients screened, and while we did not systematically note the rea- sons for exclusion from enrollment, factors ranged from failure to meet enrollment criteria (specifically, a syncopal event in the preceding 24 h) and patient refusal to participate. The potential for selection bias, related both to the total number of enrolled patients and to those excluded after initial screening, may have additionally affected our outcomes.

    In summary, in contrast to a recent study, our findings do not sup- port a high rate of PE among ED patients presenting with syncope. While our study did not include a systematic work-up for PE in all pa- tients with syncope, we would expect clinically relevant PE which accounted for syncope to manifest itself during the ED stay, hospitaliza- tion, EDOU stay, or 30-day follow-up period. Patients who had PE and syncope were all PERC positive and reported shortness of breath, in

    addition to other signs and symptoms of PE. Our findings do not suggest a need for a systematic work-up for PE in all patients presenting with syncope, but support a provider-directed work-up based on the full clinical picture of Patient symptoms, risk factors, and objective findings at the time of ED or Inpatient evaluation.

    Conflicts of interest

    None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to report.

    References

    1. Puppala VK, Dickinson O, Benditt DG. Syncope: classification and risk stratification. J Cardiol 2014;63:171-7.
    2. Koutkia P, Wachtel TJ. Pulmonary embolism presenting as syncope: case report and review of the literature. Heart Lung 1999;28:342-7.
    3. Keller K, Beule J, Balzer JO, Dippold W. Syncope and collapse in acute pulmonary em- bolism. Am J Emerg Med 2016;34:1251-7.
    4. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, Blanc JJ, Brignole M, Dahm JB, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009;30: 2631-71.
    5. Constantino G, Sun BC, Barbic F, et al. Syncope clinical management in the emergen- cy department: a consensus from the first international workshop on syncope risk stratification in the emergency department. Eur Heart J 2016;37(19):1493-8.
    6. Strickberger SA, Benson DW, Biaggioni I, et al. AHA/ACCF scientific statement on the evaluation of syncope: from the American Heart Association councils on clinical car- diology, cardiovascular nursing, cardiovascular disease in the young, and stroke, and the quality of care and outcomes research interdisciplinary working group; and the American College of Cardiology Foundation: in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society: endorsed by the American autonomic society. Circulation 2006;113: 316-27.
    7. Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Prins MH, et al. Prevalence of pulmonary embolism among patients hospitalized for syncope. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1524-31.
    8. Koutkia P, Wachtel TJ. Pulmonary embolism presenting as syncope: case report and review of the literature. Heart Lung 1999;28:342-7.
    9. 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 (Duplicate).
    10. Jenab Y, Lotfi-Tokaldany M, Alemza- deh-Ansari MJ, et al. Correlates of syncope in patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2015;21:772-6.
    11. Keller K, Beule J, Balzer JO, Dippold W. Syncope and collapse in acute pulmonary em- bolism. Am J Emerg Med 2016;34:1251-7.
    12. Thames MD, Alpert JS, Dalen JE. Syncope in patients with pulmonary embolism. JAMA 1977;238:2509-11.
    13. Soteriades ES, Evans JC, Larson MG, et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope. N Engl J Med 2002;347:878-85 (duplicate).
    14. Theilade J, Winkel BG, Holst AG, Tfelt-Hansen J, Svendsen JH, Haunso S. A nation- wide, retrospective analysis of symptoms, comorbidities, medical care and autopsy findings in cases of fatal pulmonary embolism in younger patients. J Thromb Haemost 2010;8:1723-9.
    15. Castelli R, Tarsia P, Tantardini C, Pantaleo G, Guariglia A, Porro F. Syncope in patients with pulmonary embolism: comparison between patients with syncope as the pre- senting symptom of pulmonary embolism and patients with pulmonary embolism without syncope. Vasc Med 2003;8:257-61.
    16. Saravi M, Ahmadi Ahangar A, Hojati MM, et al. Etiology of syncope in hospitalized patients. Caspian J Intern Med 2015;6:233-7.
    17. Blanc JJ, L’Her C, Touiza A, Garo B, et al. Prospective evaluation and outcome of pa- tients admitted for syncope over a 1 year period. Eur Heart J 2002 May;23(10): 815-20.
    18. Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6(5):772-80.
    19. Harris PH, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational re- search informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42(2):377-81.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *