4.1 Article

Low prevalence of atrial fibrillation in community-dwelling Chinese aged 55 years or older in Singapore: a population-based study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROCARDIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 94-98

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2007.03.012

关键词

ethnicity; health screening; aged; geriatrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in Asian populations appears to be lower than that in Western populations according to limited data. We conducted a community study to (a) estimate the prevalence of AF in Chinese adults aged 55 years or older in Singapore and (b) examine associated risk factors. Methods: We conducted a whole-survey area population screening of 1839 Chinese residents aged 55 years or older in the southeast region of Singapore with a single electrocardiographic recording. We performed structured interviews and anthropometric as well as clinical measurements, including blood pressure. Results: The estimated overall AF prevalence was 1.5% (95% confidence interval = 1.1-2.2); specifically, the prevalence was higher in men (2.6%) than in women (0.6%) and increased sharply to 5.8% only in individuals aged 80 years or older. This latter rate is lower than age-standardized rates in Western populations by approximately half and consistent with similarly low prevalence rates reported for Korea and China. Of the 26 cases of AF in this study, only 10 were known cases; 3 of the 10 patients were receiving anticoagulant therapy, whereas the rest were receiving antiplatelet therapy. Atrial fibrillation was significantly associated in multivariate analyses with male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 4.10), heart failure (OR = 3.11), and stroke (OR = 3.60). Conclusions: These data add support to the view that the prevalence of AF in Asian populations is lower than that in Western populations. The observations from these contrasting populations warrant attention in future studies. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据