RESUMO
Aims: This proof-of-concept study sought to evaluate changes in heart rate (HR) obtained from a consumer wearable device and compare against implantable loop recorder (ILR)-detected recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia (AT) after AF ablation. Methods and results: REMOTE-AF (NCT05037136) was a prospectively designed sub-study of the CASA-AF randomized controlled trial (NCT04280042). Participants without a permanent pacemaker had an ILR implanted at their index ablation procedure for longstanding persistent AF. Heart rate and step count were continuously monitored using photoplethysmography (PPG) from a commercially available wrist-worn wearable. Photoplethysmography-recorded HR data were pre-processed with noise filtration and episodes at 1-min interval over 30â min of HR elevations (Z-score = 2) were compared with corresponding ILR data. Thirty-five patients were enrolled, with mean age 70.3 ± 6.8 years and median follow-up 10 months (interquartile range 8-12 months). Implantable loop recorder analysis revealed 17 out of 35 patients (49%) had recurrence of AF/AT. Compared with ILR recurrence, wearable-derived elevations in HR ≥ 110 beats per minute had a sensitivity of 95.3%, specificity 54.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) 15.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99.2%, and overall accuracy 57.4%. With PPG-recorded HR elevation spikes (non-exercise related), the sensitivity was 87.5%, specificity 62.2%, PPV 39.2%, NPV 92.3%, and overall accuracy 64.0% in the entire patient cohort. In the AF/AT recurrence only group, sensitivity was 87.6%, specificity 68.3%, PPV 53.6%, NPV 93.0%, and overall accuracy 75.0%. Conclusion: Consumer wearable devices have the potential to contribute to arrhythmia detection after AF ablation. Study Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037136 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05037136.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In July 2019, the fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) replaced the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in England as the Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) screening tool. We aimed to assess the impact of this on healthcare resources at our BCSP center. METHODS: Two 6-month periods were initially analyzed for stool sample return and positivity rates. A subsequent comparative analysis of patient screening episodes assessed utilization of specialist screening practitioner (SSP) time, endoscopy, histology, radiology, surgical, and oncology service usage. RESULTS: A total of 42,234 patients received FOBT and 42,545 patients received FIT stool kits, with FIT showing higher return (61.8% vs 58.58%, FIT vs FOBT, P < .001) and sample positivity rates (2.41% vs 1.45%, FIT vs FOBT, P < .001). Four hundred patients commenced FOBT and 616 FIT screening episodes, a 54% increase. The FIT group had of a lower mean age (67.5 vs 69.5 years, FIT vs FOBT, P = .0001) with a lower nonattendance rate (.16% vs 1.5%, FIT vs FOBT, P = .01). With higher patient numbers, the FIT group required 69% more endoscopic procedures, 58% increased SSP time, 40% more radiologic tests, and 68% higher surgical procedures. FIT also led to a 109% increase in endoscopy-derived histology samples from an increase in the proportion of patients with polyps with FIT (54.8% vs 47.2%, P = .020) and a greater number of polyps per patient in whom polyps were found (3.00 vs 2.50 polyps, P = .017). This additional service burden equated to additional financial costs of approximately $558,000 per annum. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of FIT led to notable increases in SSP time, endoscopy procedures, radiology tests, surgical procedures, and histopathology services, resulting in considerable ongoing financial implications on the organization. Findings can be used to aid workforce and service planning in National Health Service sites delivering BCSP and countries that have already adopted or are considering FIT within their national screening programs.
