Key result
AF screening with an ILR increases GP and ED visits by ~11% versus usual care.
Why the study?
The impact of screening for incident AF on healthcare use and hospitalisation was largely unknown.
Does atrial fibrillation screening with an implantable loop recorder increase healthcare use and hospitalisations in AF-naïve individuals >70 years old compared to usual care?
RCT (n=6,004)
randomised
Yes
Does atrial fibrillation screening with an implantable loop recorder increase healthcare use and hospitalisations in AF-naïve individuals >70 years old compared to usual care?
Long-term screening for incident atrial fibrillation with an implantable loop recorder significantly increases healthcare utilization, including GP consultations and outpatient/ED visits, compared to usual care.
BACKGROUND: The impact of screening for incident atrial fibrillation (AF) on healthcare use and hospitalisation is largely unknown. METHODS: This post-hoc LOOP study analysed healthcare data from AF-naïve >70-year-olds randomised to AF screening with implantable loop recorder (ILR) or usual care. We extracted all general practitioner (GP) consultations, outpatient and emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalisations from Danish nationwide health registries over a six-year period. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR), and hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause contacts and stratified by contact-diagnosis of incident AF. RESULTS: The 6,004 participants, had 233,171 all-cause GP consultations, 96,879 all-cause outpatient/ED visits, and 18,851 all-cause hospitalisations with a median follow-up of 6.4 (6.0;6.8) years,. Compared to usual care, the screening group had higher incidences of all outcomes (GP consultation 6.58 (6.53;6.64) vs 6.27 (6.24;6.30) events per person-year (PPY), IRR 1.05 (1.04;1.05); outpatient visit 2.69 (2.66;2.72) vs 2.63 (2.61;2.65) PPY, IRR 1.02 (1.01;1.04); hospitalisation 0.54 (0.53;0.56) vs 0.52 (0.51;0.52) PPY, IRR 1.06 (1.02;1.09)) and higher relative risk of GP consultation (HR 1.11 (1.05;1.18)), all-cause outpatient/ED visit (HR 1.14 (1.07;1.21)), AF outpatient/ED visit (HR 5.30 (4.07;6.90)), and AF hospitalisation (HR 1.90 (1.44;2.49), whereas all-cause hospitalisation was similar across randomisation groups. For all events, males had a 13-14% lower rate of GP consultations and a 18-20% higher rate of hospitalisation than females. CONCLUSION: Long-term screening for incident AF was associated with significantly more GP consultations and outpatient/ED visits compared with usual care, whereas all-cause hospitalisations were unaffected. Women had more GP consultations and fewer hospitalisations than men.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kongebro et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in incident atrial fibrillation (n=6,004). AF screening with implantable loop recorder (ILR) vs. usual care was evaluated on GP consultation (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18). AF screening with an implantable loop recorder significantly increased the relative risk of GP consultations (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05-1.18) and outpatient/ED visits compared to usual care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: