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 ?
Screening for atrial fibrillation in general practice: a national, cross-sectional study of an innovative technology.
BACKGROUND To test the use of three lead monitoring as a screening tool for  atrial fibrillation ( AF )  in general practice . AF is responsible for up to a quarter of all strokes and is often asymptomatic until a stroke occurs . METHODS 26 r and omly selected general practice s identified 80 r and omly selected patients aged 70 or older from their data base and excluded those known to have AF , those with clinical issues or who had not attended for three years . Up to 40 eligible patients / practice were invited to attend for screening . A 2min three-lead ECG was recorded and collected central ly for expert cardiology assessment . Risk factor data was gathered . OUTCOMES ( i ) point prevalence of AF , ( ii ) proportion of ECG tracings which were adequate for interpretation , ( iii ) uptake rate by patients and ( iv ) acceptability of the screening process to patients and staff ( reported separately ) . RESULTS Of 1447 current patients , 1003 were eligible for inclusion , 639 ( 64 % ) agreed to take part in screening and 566 ( 56 % ) completed screening . The point prevalence rate for AF was 10.3%-2.1 % new cases ( 12 of 566 who were screened ) and 9.5 % existing cases ( 137 of 1447 eligible patients ) . Only four of 570 ( 0.7 % ) screening visits did not record a usable ECG and 11 ( 2.6 % ) three lead ECGs required a clarifying 12 lead ECG . CONCLUSIONS Three lead screening for AF is feasible , effective and offers an alternative to pulse taking or 12 lead ECGs . The availability of this technology may facilitate more effective screening , leading to reduced stroke incidence
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 ?