Observational studyThe American journal of emergency medicine2019
Orthostatic vital signs do not predict 30 day serious outcomes in older emergency department patients with syncope: A multicenter observational study.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSyncope is a common chief complaint among older adults in the Emergency Department (ED), and orthostatic vital signs are often a part of their evaluation. We assessed whether abnormal orthostatic vital signs in the ED are associated with composite 30-day serious outcomes in older adults presenting with syncope.
methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study at 11 EDs in adults ≥ 60 years who presented with syncope or near syncope. We excluded patients lost to follow up. We used the standard definition of abnormal orthostatic vital signs or subjective symptoms of lightheadedness upon standing to define orthostasis. We determined the rate of composite 30-day serious outcomes, including those during the index ED visit, such as cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, cardiac intervention, new diagnosis of structural heart disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hemorrhage/anemia requiring transfusion, with major traumatic injury from fall, recurrent syncope, and death) between the groups with normal and abnormal orthostatic vital signs.
resultsThe study cohort included 1974 patients, of whom 51.2% were male and 725 patients (37.7%) had abnormal orthostatic vital signs. Comparing those with abnormal to those with normal orthostatic vital signs, we did not find a difference in composite 30-serious outcomes (111/725 (15.3%) vs 184/1249 (14.7%); unadjusted odds ratio, 1.05 [95%CI, 0.81-1.35], p = 0.73). After adjustment for gender, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), history of arrhythmia, dyspnea, hypotension, any abnormal ECG, physician risk assessment, medication classes and disposition, there was no association with composite 30-serious outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95%CI, 0.62-1.09], p = 0.18).
conclusionsIn a cohort of older adult patients presenting with syncope who were able to have orthostatic vital signs evaluated, abnormal orthostatic vital signs did not independently predict composite 30-day serious outcomes.
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.