https://doi.org/10.4081/ecj.2026.15166
Evaluation of outcomes in patients with syncope discharged from the emergency department of Piacenza: a retrospective monocentric study
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Accepted: 23 July 2026
Published: 28 September 2026
Despite being commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED), syncope remains a diagnostic challenge, particularly among older adults with multimorbidity and polytherapy. The real danger is to underestimate cardiac syncope, which is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. For these reasons, we conducted a retrospective study to evaluate all patients admitted to the ED of Piacenza for syncope or presyncope between 2022 and 2024. Our goal was to investigate the occurrence of Major Adverse Events (MAEs) within 30 days after discharge home. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of our ED protocol for managing syncope, which is based on the 2018 ESC guidelines, which outline three phases that minimize the risk of missed diagnoses while avoiding excessive investigations. Despite being a retrospective monocentric study, the low incidence of MAEs observed supports the protocol’s effectiveness in identifying serious causes of syncope, thus allowing for safe and appropriate management of patients who are discharged home. In the future, the use of artificial intelligence could be useful to confirm the diagnosis, identify high-risk patients and decide the appropriate setting of care (discharge, observation, or admission).
Downloads
1. Hayes OW. Evaluation of syncope in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1998;16:601-15, viii. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-8627(05)70020-1
2. Brignole M, Moya A, De Lange FJ, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope. Eur Heart J 2018;39:1883-948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy210
3. Colburn S, Benditt DG. Age at first syncope: A consideration for assessing probable cause? Eur Heart J 2022;43:2124-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac122
4. Sarasin FP, Hanusa BH, Perneger T, et al. A risk score to predict arrhythmias in patients with unexplained syncope. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:1312-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00535-9
5. Olshansky B, Poole JE, Johnson G, et al. Syncope predicts the outcome of cardiomyopathy patients: analysis of the SCD-HeFT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1277-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.11.065
6. 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;24:811-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-668X(02)00827-8
7. 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;94:1620-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2008.143123
8. Numeroso F, Mossini G, Giovanelli M, et al. Short-term prognosis and current management of syncopal patients at intermediate risk: results from the IRiS (Intermediate-Risk Syncope) study. Acad Emerg Med 2016;23:941–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13013
9. Ramponi G, Paganuzzi M, Solbiati M, Costantino G. Advances in syncope: Recent evidence and clinical implications. Eur J Intern Med 2026;144:106635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2025.106635
10. Magro G. Syncope: The oldest, yet the faintest tale - A call for a new definition. Am J Med 2026;139:6-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.07.026
11. Saklani P, Krahn A, Klein G. Syncope. Circulation 2013;127:1330–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.138396
12. Zaidi A, Clough P, Cooper P, Scheepers B, Fitzpatrick AP. Misdiagnosis of epilepsy: many seizure-like attacks have a cardiovascular cause. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:181–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00700-2
13. Costantino G, et al. Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Am J Med 2014;127:1126.e13-1126.e25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.022
14. Zimmermann T, du Fay de Lavallaz J, Nestelberger T, et al. International validation of the canadian syncope risk score: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2022;175:783-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-2313
15. Olaciregui Dague K, Surges R, Litmathe J, et al. The discriminative value of blood gas analysis parameters in the differential diagnosis of transient disorders of consciousness. J Neurol 2018;265:2106-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-018-8967-8
16. Pivetta E, Moretto F, Masellis S, et al. Comparison between standard and ultrasound-integrated approach for risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med 2022;17:1191-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-021-02909-3
17. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Rowe BH, Sivilotti MLA, et al. Duration of electrocardiographic monitoring of emergency department patients with syncope. Circulation 2019;139:1396-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036088
18. Numeroso F, Casagranda I, Lerza R, Ungar A. Current ED syncope management in Italian hospitals and prospects for optimization: a national survey. Intern Emerg Med 2024;19:777-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03463-w
19. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Stiell IG, Sivilotti ML, et al. Risk stratification of adult emergency department syncope patients to predict short-term serious outcomes after discharge (RiSEDS) study. BMC Emerg Med 2014;14:8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-14-8
20. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Hess EP, Turko E, et al. Outcomes in Canadian emergency department syncope patients--are we doing a good job? J Emerg Med 2013;44:321-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.06.028
21. Grossman SA, Fischer C, Lipsitz LA, et al. Predicting adverse outcomes in syncope. J Emerg Med 2007;33:233-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.04.001
22. Statz GM, Evans AZ, Johnston SL, et al. Can artificial intelligence enhance syncope management?: a JACC: advances multidisciplinary collaborative statement. JACC: Advances 2023;2:100323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2023.100323
23. Levra AG, Gatti M, Mene R, et al. A large language model-based clinical decision support system for syncope recognition in the emergency department: a framework for clinical workflow integration. Eur J Intern Med 2025;131:113-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2024.09.017
24. Lee S, Reddy Mudireddy A, Kumar Pasupula D, et al. Novel machine learning approach to predict and personalize length of stay for patients admitted with syncope from the emergency department. J Pers Med 2022;13:7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13010007
Ethics Approval
CRediT authorship contribution
Francesca Burlon and Andrea Vercelli designed the study and collected the data; Francesca Burlon wrote the manuscript with the help of Andrea Vercelli and Erika Poggiali. Erika Poggiali supervised the findings of this work and critically revised the manuscript. Maria Giulia Bolognesi and Daniela Aschieri helped supervised the project. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.
Supporting Agencies
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon reasonable request to Erika Poggiali, E.Poggiali@ausl.cp.itr
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
