Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorCastro Canoa, Jenny Amparo 
dc.contributor.advisorLineros Montañez, Alberto 
dc.creatorBojacá Torres, Carlos 
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-27T21:22:45Z
dc.date.available2014-03-27T21:22:45Z
dc.date.created2014-01-22
dc.date.issued2014 
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/5019
dc.descriptionIntroducción: El síncope es un motivo frecuente de consulta en Urgencias, definir el estudio y el destino de estos pacientes es motivo de controversia. Se han diseñado varias escalas para estratificación del riesgo en pacientes con esta entidad. En este estudio se comparan las características operativas de 4 escalas para la decisión de hospitalizar pacientes con síncope que consultan a un servicio de urgencias de una institución de III y IV Nivel Métodos. Estudio analítico transversal, en el que se aplicaron las 4 escalas de riesgo a pacientes que consultaron por síncope al servicio de Urgencias durante un período de 6 meses y que fueron hospitalizados en la institución donde se realizó. Se evaluaron los resultados aplicando el programa Epidat 3.1 para sensibilidad y especificidad, índice de Youden. Resultados. Se incluyeron en total 91 pacientes. La sensibilidad de las escalas San Francisco, OESIL, EGSYS y la institucional para el requerimiento de hospitalización fue de 79%, 87%. 63% y 95% respectivamente y la especificidad fue de 52%, 40%, 64% y 14%. EL riesgo de mortalidad no fue adecuadamente detectado por la escala de San Francisco.. Conclusiones. Ninguna de las escalas aplicadas a los pacientes hospitalizados que consultaron por síncope a urgencias superó el juicio clínico para definir la hospitalización. Sin embargo, la escala OESIL y la institucional pueden ayudar a corroborar la decisión clínica de hospitalizar en esta población.
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Syncope is a common complaint in the emergency department, defining the proper studies and destination of these patients is still a matter of debate. There have been various tools designed to help establish which of these patients are at risk of having an adverse outcome, and therefore require admission. In this study ther are compared the operative characteristics of 4 scales for the decisión to hospitalize patients with syncope that they consult to a emergency department of an III/IV level hospital Methods: Analytic cross study, in which 4 risk scales were applied to patients consulting with a chief complaint of syncope in the emergency department, and were admitted during a 6 month period in a single institution. The results were evaluated with Epidat 3.1 to calculate sensitivity and specificity, Youden index. Results: 91 patients were included in total. The sensibility of the scales San Francisco, OESIL, EGSYS and the institutional one for the requirement of hospitalization was 79 %, 87 %. 63 % and 95 % respectively and the specificity was 52 %, 40 %, 64 % and 14 %. THE risk of mortality was not detected adequately by the scale of San Francisco. Conclusions: None of the scales applied to the hospitalized patients who consulted for sìncope to urgencies overcame the clinical judgment to define the hospitalization. Nevertheless, the scale OESIL and the institutional one can help to corroborate the clinical decision to hospitalize in this population.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.subjectEscalas de riesgo
dc.subjectSìncope
dc.subjectDecisiones en Urgencias
dc.titleComparación de cuatro escalas de riesgo en pacientes que consultaron por síncope al servicio de urgencias
dc.typemasterThesis
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosario
dc.creator.degreeEspecialista en Medicina de Emergencias
dc.publisher.programEspecialización en Medicina de Emergencias
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Medicina
dc.subject.keywordRisk Scales
dc.subject.keywordSyncope
dc.subject.keywordEmergency department decision
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.decsMedicina de urgencias - Toma de decisiones
dc.subject.decsSíncope - Diagnóstico
dc.type.spaTrabajo de grado
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto completo)
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.source.bibliographicCitation1. Mora G; Rendón I; Martínez J; Cajas L; Eslava J. Síncope y escalas de riesgo ¿Qué evidencia se tiene? Revista Colombiana de Cardiología 2011; 18: 330-339.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation2. Costantino G, Raffaello F. Syncope risk stratification in the Emergency Department. Cardiology Clinics of North America. 31 (2013) 27-38.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation3. Kayayurt K; Akoglu H; Limon O; Ergene A; Yavasi O; Bayata S; Vanden Berk N; Unluer E. Comparison of existing syncope rules and newly proposed Anatolian syncope rule to predict short-term serious outcomes after syncope in the Turkish population. International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2012 Apr 20; 5:17.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation4. Serrano L; Hess E; Bellolio M; Murad M; Montori V; Erwin P; Decker W. Accuracy and Quality of Clinical Decision Rules for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2010 October; 56(4): 362-373.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation5. Palaniswamy C, Aronow W, Agrawal N, Balasubramaniyam N, Lakshmanadoss U. Syncope: Approaches to Diagnosis and Management. Am J Therap 2012.Sep 6. Epub ahead of print]
dc.source.bibliographicCitation6. Sun B; Thiruganasambandamoorthy V; Dela Cruz J. Standardized Reporting Guidelines for Emergency Department Syncope Risk-stratification Research. Academic Emergency Medicine 2012; 19: 694-702.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation7. Gauer R. Evaluation of Syncope. American Family Physician 2011 Sep 15; 84 (6): 640-50.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation8. Benditt DG, Can I. Initial evaluation of ‘‘syncope and collapse’’ the need for a risk stratification consensus. Journal of American College of Cardiology 2010; 55:722–4.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation9. American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Subcommittee on Syncope. Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Syncope. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2007;49:431-44.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation10. Quinn JV; Stiell I; McDermott D; Sellers K; Kohn M; Wells G. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to Predict Patients With Short-Term Serious Outcomes. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2004; 43: 224-232.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation11. Colivicchi F; Ammirati F; Melina D; Guido V; Imperoli G; Santini M; OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. European Heart Journal 2003; 24: 811-819.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation12. Baranchuk A; McIntyre W; Harper W; Morillo C. Application of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Recommendations and a Risk Stratification Score (OESIL) for Patients with Syncope admitted from the Emergency Department. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2011; 11(5): 134-144.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation13. Del Rosso A; Ungar A; Maggi R; Giada F; Petix NR; De Santo T; Menozzi C; Brignole M. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Heart 2008; Dec; 94(12): 1620-1626.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation14. Birnbaum A; Esses D; Bijur P; Wollowitz A; Gallagher EJ. Failure to Validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an Independent Emergency Department Population. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2008; 52: 151-159.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation15. Saccilotto R; Nickel C; Bucher H; Steyerberg E; Bingisser R; Koller M. CMAJ October 18; 2011, 183 (15): E1116-1126.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation16. Plasek J; Doupal V; Fürstova J; Martinek A. The EGSYS and OESIL risk scores for classification of cardiac etiology of syncope: comparison, revaluation, and clinical implications. Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia 2010 Jun; 154(2): 169-173.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation17. Shen WK, Decker WW, Smars PA, et al. Syncope Evaluation in the Emergency Department Study (SEEDS): a multidisciplinary approach to syncope management. Circulation 2004;110:3636–45.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation18. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. User’s guide to medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?. JAMA 1994; 271: 704.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation19. D’Ascenzo F, Biondi-Zoccai G, Reed MJ, et al. Incidence, etiology and predictors of adverse outcomes in 43,315 patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope: an international meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2011.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation20. Costantino G, Perego F, Dipaola F, et al. Short-and long-term prognosis of syncope, risk factors, and role of hospital admission: results from the STePS (Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:276-83.
dc.source.bibliographicCitation21. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2631-71.
dc.format.tipoDocumento
dc.rights.ccCC0 1.0 Universal
dc.rights.licenciaEL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/