Observational studyThe American journal of emergency medicine2019
Recurrent syncope is not an independent risk predictor for future syncopal events or adverse outcomes.
Observational study in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Syncope diagnosis in the emergency room-importance of the ESC guidelines].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- Co-designing and piloting educational materials with patients and healthcare providers for syncope in the emergency department.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Cardiac defibrillator implantation in patients with syncope and inducible ventricular arrhythmia: insights from the German Device Registry.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Almost 20% of patients with syncope will experience another event. It is unknown whether recurrent syncope is a marker for a higher or lower risk etiology of syncope. The goal of this study is to determine whether older adults with recurrent syncope have a higher likelihood of 30-day serious clinical events than patients experiencing their first episode.
methodsThis study is a pre-specified secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective, observational study conducted at 11 emergency departments in the US. Adults 60 years or older who presented with syncope or near syncope were enrolled. The primary outcome was occurrence of 30-day serious outcome. The secondary outcome was 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmia. In multivariate analysis, we assessed whether prior syncope was an independent predictor of 30-day serious events.
resultsThe study cohort included 3580 patients: 1281 (35.8%) had prior syncope and 2299 (64.2%) were presenting with first episode of syncope. 498 (13.9%) patients had 1 prior episode while 771 (21.5%) had >1 prior episode. Those with recurrent syncope were more likely to have congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, previous diagnosis of arrhythmia, and an abnormal ECG. Overall, 657 (18.4%) of the cohort had a serious outcome by 30 days after index ED visit. In multivariate analysis, we found no significant difference in risk of events (adjusted odds ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.31; p = 0.387).
conclusionIn older adults with syncope, a prior history of syncope within the year does not increase the risk for serious 30-day events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.