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 ?
A randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness study of systematic screening (targeted and total population screening) versus routine practice for the detection of atrial fibrillation in the over 65s: (SAFE) [ISRCTN19633732]
Background Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) has been recognised as an important independent risk factor for thromboembolic disease , particularly stroke for which it provides a five-fold increase in risk . This study aim ed to determine the baseline prevalence and the incidence of AF based on a variety of screening strategies and in doing so to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies , including targeted or whole population screening , compared with routine clinical practice , for detection of AF in people aged 65 and over . The value of clinical assessment and echocardiography as additional methods of risk stratification for thromboembolic disease in patients with AF were also evaluated . Methods The study design was a multi-centre r and omised controlled trial with a study population of patients aged 65 and over from 50 General Practice s in the West Midl and s. These purpose fully selected general practice s were r and omly allocated to 25 intervention practice s and 25 control practice s. GPs and practice nurses within the intervention practice s received education on the importance of AF detection and ECG interpretation . Patients in the intervention practice s were r and omly allocated to systematic ( n = 5000 ) or opportunistic screening ( n = 5000 ) . Prospect i ve identification of pre-existing risk factors for AF within the screened population enabled comparison between high risk targeted screening and total population screening . AF detection rates in systematic ally screened and opportunistically screened population s in the intervention practice s were compared to AF detection rate in 5,000 patients in the control practice
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 ?