Benjamin C Sun1, Heather McCreath2, Li-Jung Liang2, Stephen Bohan3, Christopher Baugh3, Luna Ragsdale4, Sean O Henderson5, Carol Clark6, Aveh Bastani6, Emmett Keeler7, Ruopeng An8, Carol M Mangione9. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address: sunb@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI. 7. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. 8. College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. 9. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:Older adults are frequently hospitalized from the emergency department (ED) after an episode of unexplained syncope. Current admission patterns are costly, with little evidence of benefit. We hypothesize that an ED observation syncope protocol will reduce resource use without adversely affecting patient-oriented outcomes. METHODS: This randomized trial at 5 EDs compared an ED observation syncope protocol to inpatient admission for intermediate-risk adults (≥50 years) presenting with syncope or near syncope. Primary outcomes included inpatient admission rate and length of stay. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 6-month serious outcomes after hospital discharge, index and 30-day hospital costs, 30-day quality-of-life scores, and 30-day patient satisfaction. RESULTS:Study staff randomized 124 patients. Observation resulted in a lower inpatient admission rate (15% versus 92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] difference -88% to -66%) and shorter hospital length of stay (29 versus 47 hours; 95% CI difference -28 to -8). Serious outcome rates after hospital discharge were similar for observation versus admission at 30 days (3% versus 0%; 95% CI difference -1% to 8%) and 6 months (8% versus 10%; 95% CI difference -13% to 9%). Index hospital costs in the observation group were $629 (95% CI difference -$1,376 to -$56) lower than in the admission group. There were no differences in 30-day quality-of-life scores or in patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: An ED observation syncope protocol reduced the primary outcomes of admission rate and hospital length of stay. Analyses of secondary outcomes suggest reduction in index hospital costs, with no difference in safety events, quality of life, or patient satisfaction. Our findings suggest that an ED observation syncope protocol can be replicated and safely reduce resource use.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Older adults are frequently hospitalized from the emergency department (ED) after an episode of unexplained syncope. Current admission patterns are costly, with little evidence of benefit. We hypothesize that an ED observation syncope protocol will reduce resource use without adversely affecting patient-oriented outcomes. METHODS: This randomized trial at 5 EDs compared an ED observation syncope protocol to inpatient admission for intermediate-risk adults (≥50 years) presenting with syncope or near syncope. Primary outcomes included inpatient admission rate and length of stay. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 6-month serious outcomes after hospital discharge, index and 30-day hospital costs, 30-day quality-of-life scores, and 30-day patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Study staff randomized 124 patients. Observation resulted in a lower inpatient admission rate (15% versus 92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] difference -88% to -66%) and shorter hospital length of stay (29 versus 47 hours; 95% CI difference -28 to -8). Serious outcome rates after hospital discharge were similar for observation versus admission at 30 days (3% versus 0%; 95% CI difference -1% to 8%) and 6 months (8% versus 10%; 95% CI difference -13% to 9%). Index hospital costs in the observation group were $629 (95% CI difference -$1,376 to -$56) lower than in the admission group. There were no differences in 30-day quality-of-life scores or in patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: An ED observation syncope protocol reduced the primary outcomes of admission rate and hospital length of stay. Analyses of secondary outcomes suggest reduction in index hospital costs, with no difference in safety events, quality of life, or patient satisfaction. Our findings suggest that an ED observation syncope protocol can be replicated and safely reduce resource use.
Authors: Win K Shen; Wyatt W Decker; Peter A Smars; Deepi G Goyal; Ann E Walker; David O Hodge; Jane M Trusty; Karen M Brekke; Arshad Jahangir; Peter A Brady; Thomas M Munger; Bernard J Gersh; Stephen C Hammill; Robert L Frye Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Giorgio Costantino; Benjamin C Sun; Franca Barbic; Ilaria Bossi; Giovanni Casazza; Franca Dipaola; Daniel McDermott; James Quinn; Matthew J Reed; Robert S Sheldon; Monica Solbiati; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy; Daniel Beach; Nicolai Bodemer; Michele Brignole; Ivo Casagranda; Attilio Del Rosso; Piergiorgio Duca; Greta Falavigna; Shamai A Grossman; Roberto Ippoliti; Andrew D Krahn; Nicola Montano; Carlos A Morillo; Brian Olshansky; Satish R Raj; Martin H Ruwald; Francois P Sarasin; Win-Kuang Shen; Ian Stiell; Andrea Ungar; J Gert van Dijk; Nynke van Dijk; Wouter Wieling; Raffaello Furlan Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marc A Probst; Erica Su; Robert E Weiss; Annick N Yagapen; Susan E Malveau; David H Adler; Aveh Bastani; Christopher W Baugh; Jeffrey M Caterino; Carol L Clark; Deborah B Diercks; Judd E Hollander; Bret A Nicks; Daniel K Nishijima; Manish N Shah; Kirk A Stiffler; Alan B Storrow; Scott T Wilber; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Marc A Probst; Alexander T Janke; Adrian D Haimovich; Arjun K Venkatesh; Michelle P Lin; Keith E Kocher; Marie-Joe Nemnom; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 6.762
Authors: Monica Solbiati; Viviana Bozzano; Franca Barbic; Giovanni Casazza; Franca Dipaola; James V Quinn; Matthew J Reed; Robert S Sheldon; Win-Kuang Shen; Benjamin C Sun; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy; Raffaello Furlan; Giorgio Costantino Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Camilla Strøm; Jakob S Stefansson; Maria Louise Fabritius; Lars S Rasmussen; Thomas A Schmidt; Janus C Jakobsen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-13