dc.contributor | Castro Canoa, Jenny Amparo | |
dc.contributor | Lineros Montañez, Alberto | |
dc.creator | Bojacá Torres, Carlos | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-03-27T21:22:45Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-03-27T21:22:45Z | |
dc.date.created | 2014-03-27T21:22:45Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.identifier | http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/5019 | |
dc.identifier | https://doi.org/10.48713/10336_5019 | |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction: Syncope is a common complaint in the emergency
department, defining the proper studies and destination of these patients
is still a matter of debate. There have been various tools designed to
help establish which of these patients are at risk of having an adverse
outcome, and therefore require admission. In this study ther are
compared the operative characteristics of 4 scales for the
decisión to hospitalize patients with syncope that they consult to
a emergency department of an III/IV level hospital
Methods: Analytic cross study, in which 4 risk scales were applied to
patients consulting with a chief complaint of syncope in the emergency
department, and were admitted during a 6 month period in a single
institution. The results were evaluated with Epidat 3.1 to calculate
sensitivity and specificity, Youden index.
Results: 91 patients were included in total. The sensibility of the scales
San Francisco, OESIL, EGSYS and the institutional one for the
requirement of hospitalization was 79 %, 87 %. 63 % and 95 %
respectively and the specificity was 52 %, 40 %, 64 % and 14 %. THE
risk of mortality was not detected adequately by the scale of San
Francisco.
Conclusions: None of the scales applied to the hospitalized patients
who consulted for sìncope to urgencies overcame the clinical judgment
to define the hospitalization. Nevertheless, the scale OESIL and the
institutional one can help to corroborate the clinical decision to
hospitalize in this population. | |
dc.language | spa | |
dc.publisher | Universidad del Rosario | |
dc.publisher | Especialización en Medicina de Emergencias | |
dc.publisher | Facultad de Medicina | |
dc.rights | http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.rights | Abierto (Texto completo) | |
dc.rights | CC0 1.0 Universal | |
dc.rights | EL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. | |
dc.source | 1. Mora G; Rendón I; Martínez J; Cajas L; Eslava J. Síncope y escalas de riesgo ¿Qué evidencia se tiene? Revista Colombiana de Cardiología 2011; 18: 330-339. | |
dc.source | 2. Costantino G, Raffaello F. Syncope risk stratification in the Emergency Department. Cardiology Clinics of North America. 31 (2013) 27-38. | |
dc.source | 3. Kayayurt K; Akoglu H; Limon O; Ergene A; Yavasi O; Bayata S; Vanden Berk N; Unluer E. Comparison of existing syncope rules and newly proposed Anatolian syncope rule to predict short-term serious outcomes after syncope in the Turkish population. International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2012 Apr 20; 5:17. | |
dc.source | 4. Serrano L; Hess E; Bellolio M; Murad M; Montori V; Erwin P; Decker W. Accuracy and Quality of Clinical Decision Rules for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2010 October; 56(4): 362-373. | |
dc.source | 5. Palaniswamy C, Aronow W, Agrawal N, Balasubramaniyam N, Lakshmanadoss U. Syncope: Approaches to Diagnosis and Management. Am J Therap 2012.Sep 6. Epub ahead of print] | |
dc.source | 6. Sun B; Thiruganasambandamoorthy V; Dela Cruz J. Standardized Reporting Guidelines for Emergency Department Syncope Risk-stratification Research. Academic Emergency Medicine 2012; 19: 694-702. | |
dc.source | 7. Gauer R. Evaluation of Syncope. American Family Physician 2011 Sep 15; 84 (6): 640-50. | |
dc.source | 8. Benditt DG, Can I. Initial evaluation of ‘‘syncope and collapse’’ the need for a risk stratification consensus. Journal of American College of Cardiology 2010; 55:722–4. | |
dc.source | 9. American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Subcommittee on Syncope. Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Syncope. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2007;49:431-44. | |
dc.source | 10. Quinn JV; Stiell I; McDermott D; Sellers K; Kohn M; Wells G. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to Predict Patients With Short-Term Serious Outcomes. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2004; 43: 224-232. | |
dc.source | 11. Colivicchi F; Ammirati F; Melina D; Guido V; Imperoli G; Santini M; 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. European Heart Journal 2003; 24: 811-819. | |
dc.source | 12. Baranchuk A; McIntyre W; Harper W; Morillo C. Application of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Recommendations and a Risk Stratification Score (OESIL) for Patients with Syncope admitted from the Emergency Department. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2011; 11(5): 134-144. | |
dc.source | 13. Del Rosso A; Ungar A; Maggi R; Giada F; Petix NR; De Santo T; Menozzi C; Brignole M. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Heart 2008; Dec; 94(12): 1620-1626. | |
dc.source | 14. Birnbaum A; Esses D; Bijur P; Wollowitz A; Gallagher EJ. Failure to Validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an Independent Emergency Department Population. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2008; 52: 151-159. | |
dc.source | 15. Saccilotto R; Nickel C; Bucher H; Steyerberg E; Bingisser R; Koller M. CMAJ October 18; 2011, 183 (15): E1116-1126. | |
dc.source | 16. Plasek J; Doupal V; Fürstova J; Martinek A. The EGSYS and OESIL risk scores for classification of cardiac etiology of syncope: comparison, revaluation, and clinical implications. Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia 2010 Jun; 154(2): 169-173. | |
dc.source | 17. Shen WK, Decker WW, Smars PA, et al. Syncope Evaluation in the Emergency Department Study (SEEDS): a multidisciplinary approach to syncope management. Circulation 2004;110:3636–45. | |
dc.source | 18. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. User’s guide to medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?. JAMA 1994; 271: 704. | |
dc.source | 19. D’Ascenzo F, Biondi-Zoccai G, Reed MJ, et al. Incidence, etiology and predictors of adverse outcomes in 43,315 patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope: an international meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2011. | |
dc.source | 20. Costantino G, Perego F, Dipaola F, et al. Short-and long-term prognosis of syncope, risk factors, and role of hospital admission: results from the STePS (Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:276-83. | |
dc.source | 21. 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. | |
dc.source | instname:Universidad del Rosario | |
dc.source | reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR | |
dc.subject | Escalas de riesgo | |
dc.subject | Sìncope | |
dc.subject | Decisiones en Urgencias | |
dc.title | Comparación de cuatro escalas de riesgo en pacientes que consultaron por síncope al servicio de urgencias | |
dc.type | masterThesis | |