4.6 Article

Multiple causes of syncope in the elderly: diagnostic outcomes of a Dutch multidisciplinary syncope pathway

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 867-872

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eux099

关键词

Syncope; Aged 80 and over; Elderly; Causality; Critical pathways; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To assess the diagnostic outcomes of a multidisciplinary pathway for elderly syncope patients. Methods and results Observational cohort study at a Fall and Syncope Clinic, including consecutive syncope patients aged >= 65 years between 2011 and 2014. Measurements: The sort, number, and accuracy of diagnoses resulting in syncope. Secondary outcomes: reliability of the medical history and the number of electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities. The 117 included patients (72% females) had a mean age of 80 +/- 6.5 years and a mean of 11 +/- 5 (mainly cardiovascular) comorbidities. We found 212 contributing diagnoses. Symptomatic orthostatic/postprandial hypotension was present in 45%, cardiac causes in 44% (rhythm or conduction disorders 24%, aortic stenosis 4%, cardiomyopathies 2%, suspected cardiac causes 15%), and reflex syncope in 21%; 6% remained without any explanation. The diagnosis of the cause of syncope was uncertain in 34.2%, probable in 15.4%, and definite/most likely in 50.4%. Cognitive impaired patients were less likely to give a reliable medical history regarding their syncope (72% vs. 98% in cognitive intact patients, P = 0.001). In only 25% of patients a useful eyewitness account was available. 64% of ECGs showed relevant abnormalities; 26% was suggestive of cardiac syncope, of which 20% showed an indication for device implantation. Conclusion The majority of our elderly syncope patients had multiple contributing factors, often in addition to their primary diagnosis. Orthostatic/postprandial hypotension and cardiac disorders were the most frequent. Using a multidisciplinary approach, one or more possible explanations for the syncope were found in 94% of patients, with a definite diagnosis in 50%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据