Key result
Office automated blood pressure devices demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting atrial fibrillation, with a pooled sensitivity of 96.2% and specificity of 94.0%.
Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation is a prevalent and preventable cause of stroke and mortality, warranting evaluation of automated blood pressure devices for its detection.
Do automated blood pressure devices accurately detect atrial fibrillation in adult patients compared to standard ECG?
Systematic Review (n=10,158)
Do automated blood pressure devices accurately detect atrial fibrillation in adult patients compared to standard ECG?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 96.2% (95% CI 92.3-98.2)
Automated office blood pressure devices demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for detecting atrial fibrillation, supporting their clinical utility as a screening tool in high-risk populations.
Office BP devices enable accurate AF screening in high-risk patients; supports clinical adoption while outcome trials remain needed.
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent and preventable cause of stroke and mortality. Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of office and out-of-office automated blood pressure (BP) devices to detect AF. Methods Diagnostic studies, extracted from databases such as Ovid Medline and Embase, on AF detection by BP device(s), electrocardiography, and reported sensitivity and specificity, were included. Screening of abstracts and full texts, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators using Covidence software. The sensitivity and specificity of the BP devices were pooled using a random-effects model. Results Sixteen studies including 10,158 participants were included. Only a few studies were conducted in primary care (n = 3) or with a low risk of bias (n = 5). Office BP devices, which utilised different algorithms to detect AF, had a sensitivity and specificity of 96.2 and 94%, respectively. Specificity was reduced when only one positive result was considered among consecutive BP measurements. Only a few studies (n = 3) investigated out-of-office BP. Only one study (n = 100) suggested the use of ≥79 and ≥26% of positive readings on 24-h ambulatory BP measurements to detect AF and paroxysmal AF, respectively. Conclusions Office BP devices can be used clinically to screen for AF in high-risk populations. Clinical trials are needed to determine the effect of AF screening using office BP devices in reducing stroke risk and mortality. Further studies are also required to guide out-of-office use of BP devices for detecting paroxysmal AF or AF. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022319541 , PROSPERO CRD42022319541.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review in Atrial fibrillation (n=10,158). Automated blood pressure devices vs. 12-lead ECG or continuous ECG was evaluated on Sensitivity of office blood pressure devices to detect atrial fibrillation (Sensitivity 96.2%, 95% CI 92.3-98.2). Office automated blood pressure devices demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting atrial fibrillation, with a pooled sensitivity of 96.2% and specificity of 94.0%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: