Evidence suggests that systematic screening and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice .
Although these approaches have comparable effects on the overall AF diagnosis rate , the cost of systematic screening is significantly greater than the cost of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) , the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice , is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality .
Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy before the onset of symptoms .
However , for screening to be an effective intervention , it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those detected earlier as a result of screening .
OBJECTIVES This review aims to answer the following questions .Does systematic screening increase the detection of AF compared with routine practice ?
Which combination of screening population , strategy and test is most effective for detecting AF compared with routine practice ?
What safety issues and adverse events may be associated with individual screening programmes ?
How acceptable is the intervention to the target population ?
What costs are associated with systematic screening for AF ?
Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in elderly subjects (the Cardiovascular Health Study).
Atrial  fibrillation ( AF ) is a common arrhythmia in elderly persons and a common cause of embolic stroke . Most studies of the prevalence and correlates of AF have used selected , hospital-based population s. The Cardiovascular Health Study is a population -based , longitudinal study of risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke in 5,201 men and women aged > or = 65 years .  AF  was diagnosed in 4.8 % of women and in 6.2 % of men at the baseline examination , and prevalence was strongly associated with advanced age in women . Prevalence of AF  was 9.1 % in men and women with clinical cardiovascular disease , 4.6 % in patients with evidence of sub clinical but no clinical cardiovascular disease , and only 1.6 % in subjects with neither clinical nor sub clinical cardiovascular disease . A history of congestive heart failure , valvular heart disease and stroke , echocardiographic evidence of enlarged left atrial dimension , abnormal mitral or aortic valve function , treated systemic hypertension , and advanced age were independently associated with the prevalence of AF .  The low prevalence of AF in the absence of clinical and sub clinical cardiovascular disease calls into question the existence and clinical usefulness of the concept of so-called " lone atrial fibrillation " in the elderly
Evidence suggests that systematic screening and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice .
Although these approaches have comparable effects on the overall AF diagnosis rate , the cost of systematic screening is significantly greater than the cost of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) , the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice , is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality .
Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy before the onset of symptoms .
However , for screening to be an effective intervention , it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those detected earlier as a result of screening .
OBJECTIVES This review aims to answer the following questions .Does systematic screening increase the detection of AF compared with routine practice ?
Which combination of screening population , strategy and test is most effective for detecting AF compared with routine practice ?
What safety issues and adverse events may be associated with individual screening programmes ?
How acceptable is the intervention to the target population ?
What costs are associated with systematic screening for AF ?