4.7 Review

Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 41, Issue 10, Pages 1075-1085

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz834

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; Screening; Stroke; Anticoagulation

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust Doctoral Research Fellowship [203921/Z/16/Z]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lectureship
  3. NIHR School for Primary Care Research
  4. NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Health Research and Care (CLARHC) Oxford
  5. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
  6. NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative
  7. British Heart Foundation (BHF)
  8. UK Medical Research Council
  9. NIHR Oxford BRC
  10. BHF
  11. MRC [MC_U137686861, MC_PC_11004, G9900264] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and prevalence is predicted to double over the next 30 years due to changing demographics and the rise in prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Atrial fibrillation is associated with a five-fold increased stroke risk, but anticoagulation in eligible patients can reduce this risk by around 65%. Many people with AF currently go undetected and therefore untreated, either because they are asymptomatic or because they have paroxysmal AF. Screening has been suggested as one approach to increase AF detection rates and reduce the incidence of ischaemic stroke by earlier initiation of anticoagulation therapy. However, international taskforces currently recommend against screening, citing the cost implications and uncertainty over the benefits of a systematic screening programme compared to usual care. A number of large randomized controlled trials have commenced to determine the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of screening using a range of devices and across different populations. The recent AppleWatch study demonstrates how advances in technology are providing the public with self-screening devices that are increasingly affordable and accessible. Health care professionals should be aware of the implications of these emerging data for diagnostic pathways and treatment. This review provides an overview of the gaps in the current evidence and a summary of the arguments for and against screening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available