Systematic and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice .
While both approaches have a comparable effect on the overall AF diagnosis rate , the cost of systematic screening is significantly more than that of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice and 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 prior to the onset of symptoms .
However , for screening to be an effective intervention it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those who are detected earlier as a result of screening .
OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to examine whether screening programmes increase the detection of new cases of AF compared to routine practice .
The secondary objectives were to identify which combination of screening strategy and patient population is most effective , as well as assessing any safety issues associated with screening , its acceptability within the target population and the costs involved .
Randomised trial of two approaches to screening for atrial fibrillation in UK general practice.
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is a common and treatable cause of stroke that often remains unrecognised . Screening has been suggested but there is very little evidence concerning the uptake of screening in the elderly population at risk , nor of the optimal method of screening in a general practice setting AIM To compare the uptake and effectiveness of two methods of screening for atrial fibrillation in general practice -- systematic nurse-led screening and prompted opportunistic case finding . DESIGN OF STUDY R and omised controlled trial . SETTING Patients aged 65 to 100 years ( n = 3,001 ) from four general practice s within the MRC general practice framework . METHOD Each of the four study practice s were selected from one quartile , after ranking all framework practice s according to the small area st and ardised mortality ratio of the geographical area served . Patients were r and omised either to nurse-led screening or to prompted opportunistic casefinding . The proportion of patients assessed and the proportion found to have atrial fibrillation were compared . The sensitivity and specificity of clinical assessment of pulse are also reported . RESULTS Substantially more patients had their pulse assessed through systematic screening by invitation ( 1,099/1,499 [ 73 % ] ) than through opportunistic case finding ( 439/1,502 [ 29 % ] , difference = 44 % , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] = 41 % to 47 % ) . Atrial fibrillation was detected in 67 ( 4.5 % ) and 19 ( 1.3 % ) patients respectively ( difference = 3.2 % , 95 % CI= 2.0 to 4.4 ) . Invitation to nurse-led screening achieved significantly higher assessment rates than case finding in all practice s ; however , the proportion of patients assessed in the case-finding arm varied markedly between practice s ( range = 8 % to 52 % ) . The number needed to screen to identify one additional patient with atrial fibrillation was 31 ( 95 % CI = 23 to 50 ) . The proportion of screened patients with atrial fibrillation receiving anticoagulation treatment was 25 % , although in the majority ( 53/65 [ 82 % ] ) atrial fibrillation had been previously recorded somewhere on their medical record . If the nurse used any irregularity of the pulse as the screening criterion , the sensitivity of screening was 91 % and the specificity was 74 % ; sensitivity fell to 54 % but specificity increased to 98 % if the criterion used was continuous irregularity . CONCLUSIONS Nurse-led screening for atrial fibrillation in UK general practice is both feasible and effective and will identify a substantial number of patients who could benefit from antithrombotic therapy . Although the majority of patients detected at first screening could be identified by careful scrutiny of medical records , review of record summaries was insufficient in the practice s involved in this study and screening may be a more cost-effective option
Systematic and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice .
While both approaches have a comparable effect on the overall AF diagnosis rate , the cost of systematic screening is significantly more than that of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider .
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice and 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 prior to the onset of symptoms .
However , for screening to be an effective intervention it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those who are detected earlier as a result of screening .
OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to examine whether screening programmes increase the detection of new cases of AF compared to routine practice .
The secondary objectives were to identify which combination of screening strategy and patient population is most effective , as well as assessing any safety issues associated with screening , its acceptability within the target population and the costs involved .