Key result
Systematic atrial fibrillation screening using the Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB device during automated blood pressure measurement demonstrated 86% sensitivity and 96% specificity compared to ECG.
Why the study?
AF is often casually discovered among hospitalized patients, prompting evaluation of whether systematic screening using an automated oscillometric blood pressure device is effective for detecting AF in internal medicine wards.
Does systematic AF screening using an automated oscillometric blood pressure device accurately detect atrial fibrillation in patients admitted to an internal medicine ward?
Cross-Sectional (n=163)
No
Does systematic AF screening using an automated oscillometric blood pressure device accurately detect atrial fibrillation in patients admitted to an internal medicine ward?
Effect estimate: Kappa 0.81
p-value: p=<0.001
Systematic AF screening using an automated oscillometric blood pressure device is feasible and effective for detecting AF, including new-onset episodes, in hospitalized internal medicine patients.
Supports AF screening during BP measurement in wards; leaves open need for outcome trials before adoption.
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the commonest sustained cardiac arrhythmia affecting the adult population, is often casually discovered among hospitalized people. AF onset is indeed triggered by several clinical conditions such as acute inflammatory states, infections, and electrolyte disturbance, frequently occurring during the hospitalization. We aimed to evaluate whether systematic AF screening, performed through an automated oscillometric blood pressure (BP) device (Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB, Microlife AG, Switzerland), is effective for detecting AF episodes in subjects admitted to an Internal Medicine ward. 163 patients consecutively hospitalized at the Unit of Internal Medicine of the "Santa Maria" Terni University Hospital between November 2019 and January 2020 (mean age ± standard deviation: 77 ± 14 years, men proportion: 40%) were examined. Simultaneously with BP measurement and AF screening, a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in all subjects. AF was diagnosed by ECG in 29 patients (18%). AF screening showed overall 86% sensitivity and 96% specificity. False negatives (n = 4) had RR-interval coefficient of variation lower than true positives (n = 25, p < 0.01), suggesting a regular ventricular rhythm during AF. The repeated evaluation substantially confirmed the same level of agreement. AF screening was positive in all patients with new-onset AF (n = 6, 100%). Systematic AF screening in patients admitted to Internal Medicine wards, performed using the Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB, is feasible and effective. The opportunity to implement such technology in daily routine clinical practice to prevent undiagnosed AF episodes in hospitalized patients should be the subject of further research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pucci et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=163). Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB device vs. Standard 12-lead ECG was evaluated on Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of AF screening (Kappa 0.81, p=<0.001). Systematic atrial fibrillation screening using the Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB device during automated blood pressure measurement demonstrated 86% sensitivity and 96% specificity compared to ECG.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: