Key result
Single-lead electrocardiogram and a blood pressure device with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms demonstrated superior specificity compared with a manual pulse-check for detecting atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Do newer screening technologies (single-lead electrocardiogram and blood pressure machine) improve the specificity of detecting atrial fibrillation compared to a pulse-check in adults aged 65 and older in primary care?
Cohort (n=2,171)
Single-blind
Yes
Do newer screening technologies (single-lead electrocardiogram and blood pressure machine) improve the specificity of detecting atrial fibrillation compared to a pulse-check in adults aged 65 and older in primary care?
p-value: p=<0.001
Single-lead electrocardiogram and blood pressure devices with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms offer superior specificity compared to pulse-checks for opportunistic screening in primary care, significantly reducing false positives.
May reduce false positives during primary care AF screening in older adults; leaves open confirmation of outcome benefits in randomized trials.
Background: Detection of undiagnosed or undertreated (“actionable”) atrial fibrillation could increase the use of appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy and reduce the risk of stroke. We sought to compare newer screening technologies with a pulse-check for the detection of atrial fibrillation and to determine whether the detection of actionable atrial fibrillation increases the use of oral anticoagulant agents. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study involved 22 primary care clinics. We recruited participants aged 65 years and older who were attending routine appointments. Each participant underwent 3 methods of screening: a 30-second radial pulse-check; single-lead electrocardiogram; and screening by blood pressure machine with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms. Participants who received a positive result on 1 or more test underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram with or withour 24-hour Holter. Screening tests were compared using the McNemar test. Participants with confirmed atrial fibrillation received follow-up at 90 days. Results: The mean age of participants was 73.7 (± 6.9) years, and 53.4% of participants were female. Of 2171 patients, we had data from all 3 screening tests for 2054 patients. Both single-lead electrocardiogram and the blood pressure device showed superior specificity compared with pulse-check (p < 0.001 for each). Fifty-six patients (2.7%) had confirmed atrial fibrillation: 12 patients had newly detected atrial fibrillation (none of the patients were using anticoagulation agents), and 44 patients had previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation (42 patients were receiving anticoagulant therapy, 2 were not). Thus, 14 patients had actionable atrial fibrillation (0.7%). By 90 days, 77% of patients with actionable atrial fibrillation had started anticoagulant therapy. Interpretation: Newer screening technologies showed superior specificity compared with a pulse-check. Screening detected undiagnosed or undertreated atrial fibrillation in 0.7% of participants, and 77% started appropriate anticoagulant therapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02262351.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quinn et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=2,171). Single-lead electrocardiogram and blood pressure device vs. 30-second radial pulse-check was evaluated on Specificity for detection of atrial fibrillation (p=<0.001). Single-lead electrocardiogram and a blood pressure device with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms demonstrated superior specificity compared with a manual pulse-check for detecting atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: