ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
We present an economic evaluation of a recently completed cohort study in which 2054 seniors were screened for atrial fibrillation (AF) in 22 Canadian family practices. Using a Markov model, trial and literature data were used to project long-term outcomes and costs associated with 4 AF screening strategies for individuals aged 65 years or older: no screening, screen with 30-second radial manual pulse check (pulse check), screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection (BP-AF), and screen with a single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% and the model used a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. Compared with no screening, screening for AF in Canadian family practice offices using pulse check or screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection is the dominant strategy whereas screening with SL-ECG is a highly cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of CAD$4788. When different screening strategies were compared, screening with pulse check had the lowest expected costs ($202) and screening with SL-ECG had the highest expected costs ($222). The no-screening arm resulted in the lowest number of QALYs (8.74195) whereas pulse check and SL-ECG resulted in the highest expected QALYs (8.74362). Probabilistic analysis confirmed that pulse check had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%) assuming a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Screening for AF in seniors during routine appointments with Canadian family physicians is a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening. Screening with a pulse check is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.
