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 .
Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial
Objectives To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation  ( cluster r and omisation ) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening . Design Multicentred cluster r and omised controlled trial , with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm . Setting 50 primary care centres in Engl and , with further individual r and omisation of patients in the intervention practice s. Participants 14 802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practice s. Interventions Patients in intervention practice s were r and omly allocated to systematic screening ( invitation for electrocardiography ) or opportunistic screening ( pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular ) . Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003 . No active screening took place in control practice s. Main outcome measure Newly identified atrial fibrillation . Results The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63 % a year in the intervention practice s and 1.04 % in control practice s ( difference 0.59 % , 95 % confidence interval 0.20 % to 0.98 % ) . Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases ( 1.62 % v 1.64 % , difference 0.02 % , −0.5 % to 0.5 % ) . Conclusion Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice . The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N19633732
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 .