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 ?
Left ventricular systolic dysfunction and atrial fibrillation in older people in the community--a need for screening?
BACKGROUND Heart failure and stroke are major causes of morbidity and mortality in older people .  Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors improve symptoms and survival in left ventricular systolic dysfunction . Anticoagulants are effective in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation with aspirin being a less effective alternative . OBJECTIVES To determine the prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction , health services utilisation and prescribing of diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in left ventricular systolic dysfunction , and the prevalence of atrial fibrillation and anti-platelet/thrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation in older people in the community . METHODS 500 subjects were drawn by two-stage r and om sampling from 5,002 subjects aged 70 years and over living at home . Subjects were screened for atrial fibrillation and left ventricular systolic dysfunction using electrocardiography and echocardiography . RESULTS The population prevalence amongst older people of left ventricular systolic dysfunction was 9.8 % and of atrial fibrillation 7.8 % . More than two-thirds of those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction were not on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors . Of those in atrial fibrillation , 35 % were taking aspirin , 24 % were taking warfarin and 41 % were on neither aspirin nor warfarin . Nearly 90 % of older people in the community have had contact with their general practitioner over the past year , and over half of those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction have had contact with hospital-based services over the past 2 years . CONCLUSIONS Left ventricular systolic dysfunction is under-treated in older people in the community . Despite the high level of contact with hospital and community-based services , the majority of those with systolic left ventricular dysfunction are not on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and a significant proportion of those in atrial fibrillation are not on any treatment for stroke prevention
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 ?