4.6 Article

Estimated prevalence of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation in the United States

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195088

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  2. Pfizer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction As atrial fibrillation (AF) is often asymptomatic, it may remain undiagnosed until or even after development of complications, such as stroke. Consequently the observed prevalence of AF may underestimate total disease burden. Methods To estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed AF in the United States, we performed a retrospective cohort modeling study in working age (18-64) and elderly (>= 65) people using commercial and Medicare administrative claims databases. We identified patients in years 2004-2010 with incident AF following an ischemic stroke. Using a back-calculation methodology, we estimated the prevalence of undiagnosed AF as the ratio of the number of post stroke AF patients and the CHADS(2)-specific stroke probability for each patient, adjusting for age and gender composition based on United States census data. Results The estimated prevalence of AF (diagnosed and undiagnosed) was 3,873,900 (95%/CI: 3,675,200-4,702,600) elderly and 1,457,100 (95%CI: 1,218,500-1,695,800) working age adults, representing 10.0% and 0.92% of the respective populations. Of these, 698,900 were undiagnosed: 535,400 (95%CI: 331,900-804,400) elderly and 163,500 (95%CI: 17,700-400,000) working age adults, representing 1.3% and 0.09% of the respective populations. Among all undiagnosed cases, 77% had a CHADS(2) score >= 1, and 56% had CHADS(2) score >= 2. Conclusions Using a back-calculation approach, we estimate that the total AF prevalence in 2009 was 5.3 million of which 0.7 million (13.1% of AF cases) were undiagnosed. Over half of the modeled population with undiagnosed AF was at moderate to high risk of stroke.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available