Original Article

CME Article: Yield of Diagnostic Tests and Its Impact on Cost in Adult Patients with Syncope Presenting to a Community Hospital

Authors: Philip C. Johnson, MD, Hussam Ammar, MD, Wael Zohdy, PhD, Ragai Fouda, PhD, Rukma Govindu, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Total annual costs for syncope-related hospitalizations were $2.4 billion in 2000. The aim of this study was to examine the type and number of tests ordered for patients admitted with syncope and whether these tests helped establish the cause.

Methods: We studied the records of 1038 patients coded as “syncope” in billing records, and 167 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main outcome measures were the diagnostic yield of the ordered tests, the incremental cost/incremental benefit, and the number of admissions that can be averted if risk stratification were used in the evaluation.

Results: The etiology of the syncope was identified in 48.3% of the patients. Postural blood pressure measurement has the highest diagnostic yield at 58.7%, whereas history taking diagnosed 19.7% of cases. The diagnostic yields of telemetry, electrocardiogram, radionuclide stress test, echocardiography, and troponin measurement were 4.76%, 4.24%, 3.44%, 0.94%, and 0.62%, respectively. Chest x-ray, carotid ultrasonography, 24-hour Holter monitoring, brain computed tomography, and brain magnetic resonance imaging did not yield the diagnosis in any of the patients. Only 1.9% of the money spent in the evaluation of syncope was effective in leading to a definitive diagnosis. The orthostatic blood pressure measurement was ranked first in the incremental cost/incremental benefit ratio and the radionuclide stress test was ranked last (17.03 vs 42,369.0, respectively). Approximately 6% of the patients did not meet the admission criteria.

Conclusions: Physicians ordered unnecessary tests that have a low yield and are not cost-effective. A standardized algorithmic approach should be the cornerstone in the evaluation of syncope.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Kapoor WN. Syncope. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1856-1862.
 
2. Kapoor WN. Current evaluation and management of syncope. Circulation 2002;106:1606-1609.
 
3. Brignole M. Diagnosis and treatment of syncope. Heart 2007;93:130-136.
 
4. Soteriades ES, Evans JC, Larson MG, et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope. N Engl J Med 2002;347:878-885.
 
5. Sun BC, Emond JA, Camargo CA Jr. Direct medical costs of syncope-related hospitalizations in the United States. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:668-671.
 
6. Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope, European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009;30:2631-2671.
 
7. Strickberger SA, Benson DW, Biaggioni I, et al. AHA/ACCF scientific statement on the evaluation of syncope: from the American Heart Association Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Cardiovascular Nursing, Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and Stroke, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group; and the American College of Cardiology Foundation: in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society: endorsed by the American Autonomic Society. Circulation 2006;113:316-327.
 
8. Brignole M, Alboni P, Benditt DG, et al. Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope--update 2004. Executive summary. Eur Heart J 2004;25:2054-2072.
 
9. Ann Huff JS, Decker WW, Quinn JV, et al. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:431-444.
 
10. Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes NA 3rd, et al. Diagnosing syncope. Part 1: value of history, physical examination, and electrocardiography. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:989-996.
 
11. Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes NA 3rd, et al. Diagnosing syncope. Part 2: unexplained syncope. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:76-86.
 
12. Del Rosso A, Ungar A, Maggi R, et al. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Heart 2008;94:1620-1626.
 
13. Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, et al. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43:224-232.
 
14. Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, et al. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J 2003;24:811-819.
 
15. Reed MJ, Newby DE, Coull AJ, et al. The ROSE (risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:713-721.
 
16. Brignole M, Ungar A, Bartoletti A, et al. Standardized-care pathway versus usual management of syncope patients presenting as emergencies at general hospitals. Europace 2006;8:644-650.
 
17. Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, et al. The San Francisco Syncope Rule vs physician judgment and decision making. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:782-786.
 
18. Shen WK, Decker WW, Smars PA, et al. Syncope Evaluation in the Emergency Department Study (SEEDS): a multidisciplinary approach to syncope management. Circulation 2004;110:3636-3645.
 
19. Mitro P, Kirsch P, Valocik G, et al. A prospective study of the standardized diagnostic evaluation of syncope. Europace 2011;13:566-571.
 
20. Pires LA, Ganji JR, Jarandila R, et al. Diagnostic patterns and temporal trends in the evaluation of adult patients hospitalized with syncope. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1889-1895.
 
21. Alboni P, Brignole M, Menozzi C, et al. Diagnostic value of history in patients with syncope with or without heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1921-1928.
 
22. Kapoor WN, Karpf M, Wieand S, et al. A prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with syncope. N Engl J Med 1983;309:197-204.
 
23. Sarasin FP, Louis-Simonet M, Carballo D, et al. Prospective evaluation of patients with syncope: a population-based study. Am J Med 2001;111:177-184.
 
24. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Bartoletti A, et al. A new management of syncope: prospective systematic guideline-based evaluation of patients referred urgently to general hospitals. Eur Heart J 2006;27:76-82.
 
25. Mendu ML, McAvay G, Lampert R, et al. Yield of diagnostic tests in evaluating syncopal episodes in older patients. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1299-1305.
 
26. Farwell DJ, Sulke AN. Does the use of a syncope diagnostic protocol improve the investigation and management of syncope? Heart 2004;90:52-58.