Literature DB >> 28851729

Assessment of Remote Heart Rhythm Sampling Using the AliveCor Heart Monitor to Screen for Atrial Fibrillation: The REHEARSE-AF Study.

Julian P J Halcox1, Kathie Wareham2, Antonia Cardew2, Mark Gilmore2, James P Barry2, Ceri Phillips2, Michael B Gravenor2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly common in the aging population and implicated in many ischemic strokes. Earlier identification of AF with appropriate anticoagulation may decrease stroke morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of AF screening using an AliveCor Kardia monitor attached to a WiFi-enabled iPod to obtain ECGs (iECGs) in ambulatory patients. Patients ≥65 years of age with a CHADS-VASc score ≥2 free from AF were randomized to the iECG arm or routine care (RC). iECG participants acquired iECGs twice weekly over 12 months (plus additional iECGs if symptomatic) onto a secure study server with overread by an automated AF detection algorithm and by a cardiac physiologist and/or consultant cardiologist. Time to diagnosis of AF was the primary outcome measure. The overall cost of the devices, ECG interpretation, and patient management were captured and used to generate the cost per AF diagnosis in iECG patients. Clinical events and patient attitudes/experience were also evaluated.
RESULTS: We studied 1001 patients (500 iECG, 501 RC) who were 72.6±5.4 years of age; 534 were female. Mean CHADS-VASc score was 3.0 (heart failure, 1.4%; hypertension, 54%; diabetes mellitus, 30%; prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, 6.5%; arterial disease, 15.9%; all CHADS-VASc risk factors were evenly distributed between groups). Nineteen patients in the iECG group were diagnosed with AF over the 12-month study period versus 5 in the RC arm (hazard ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval=1.4-10.4; P=0.007) at a cost per AF diagnosis of $10 780 (£8255). There was a similar number of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolic events (6 versus 10, iECG versus RC; hazard ratio=0.61; 95% confidence interval=0.22-1.69; P=0.34). The majority of iECG patients were satisfied with the device, finding it easy to use without restricting activities or causing anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS: Screening with twice-weekly single-lead iECG with remote interpretation in ambulatory patients ≥65 years of age at increased risk of stroke is significantly more likely to identify incident AF than RC over a 12-month period. This approach is also highly acceptable to this group of patients, supporting further evaluation in an appropriately powered, event-driven clinical trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN10709813.
© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atrial fibrillation; electrocardiography; mass screening; preventive medicine; stroke

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28851729     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  112 in total

Review 1.  Wearing Your Heart on Your Sleeve: the Future of Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring.

Authors:  Mostafa A Al-Alusi; Eric Ding; David D McManus; Steven A Lubitz
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  Population-Based Screening for Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Shaan Khurshid; Jeffrey S Healey; William F McIntyre; Steven A Lubitz
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 3.  Digital health solutions in the screening of subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Sebastian König; Andreas Bollmann; Gerhard Hindricks
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 4.  Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare.

Authors:  Davide Cirillo; Silvina Catuara-Solarz; Czuee Morey; Emre Guney; Laia Subirats; Simona Mellino; Annalisa Gigante; Alfonso Valencia; María José Rementeria; Antonella Santuccione Chadha; Nikolaos Mavridis
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-06-01

5.  Is your smartphone the future of physiologic monitoring?

Authors:  Frederic Michard; Borja Barrachina; Patrick Schoettker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Kardia Mobile applicability in clinical practice: A comparison of Kardia Mobile and standard 12-lead electrocardiogram records in 100 consecutive patients of a tertiary cardiovascular care center.

Authors:  Lukasz Koltowski; Pawel Balsam; Renata Glowczynska; Jakub K Rokicki; Michal Peller; Jakub Maksym; Leszek Blicharz; Kacper Maciejewski; Magdalena Niedziela; Grzegorz Opolski; Marcin Grabowski
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 2.737

7.  Development and Validation of a Deep-Learning Model to Screen for Hyperkalemia From the Electrocardiogram.

Authors:  Conner D Galloway; Alexander V Valys; Jacqueline B Shreibati; Daniel L Treiman; Frank L Petterson; Vivek P Gundotra; David E Albert; Zachi I Attia; Rickey E Carter; Samuel J Asirvatham; Michael J Ackerman; Peter A Noseworthy; John J Dillon; Paul A Friedman
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 8.  Connected Health Technology for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Management.

Authors:  Shannon Wongvibulsin; Seth S Martin; Steven R Steinhubl; Evan D Muse
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2019-05-18

9.  New electrocardiographic score for the prediction of atrial fibrillation: The MVP ECG risk score (morphology-voltage-P-wave duration).

Authors:  Bryce Alexander; Julia Milden; Bachar Hazim; Sohaib Haseeb; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Roberto Elosua; Manuel Martínez-Sellés; Cynthia Yeung; Wilma Hopman; Antoni Bayes de Luna; Adrian Baranchuk
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 1.468

10.  Indirectly-Supervised Anomaly Detection of Clinically-Meaningful Health Events from Smart Home Data.

Authors:  Jessamyn Dahmen; Diane J Cook
Journal:  ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 4.654

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.