Ngai-Yin Chan1, Chi-Chung Choy2, Chi-Kin Chan3, Chung-Wah Siu4. 1. Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Electronic address: ngaiyinchan@yahoo.com.hk. 2. Department of Medicine & Geriatrics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 3. Department of Medicine, United Christian Hospital, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong. 4. Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients older than 65 years is currently recommended. OBJECTIVE: We aim to examine the effectiveness of a nongovernmental organization-led community-based AF screening program carried out by trained layperson volunteers. METHODS: AF screening was performed using a smartphone electrocardiogram in 11,574 participants. RESULTS: Among all participants, smartphone electrocardiograms were interpretable in 10,735 citizens (92.8%; 8564 female citizens [79.8%]; mean age 78.6 ± 8.1 years). Two hundred forty-four participants (2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-2.6%; 172 female participants [70.5%]; mean age 79.5 ± 7.9 years) had AF and were advised over phone by a nurse to seek medical attention. Newly diagnosed AF was found in 74 participants (0.69%; 95% CI 0.54-0.84%) with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.9 ± 1.5. Thirty-six of them (48%; 95% CI 36.6-59.4%) were asymptomatic. The number needed to screen for 1 newly diagnosed AF was 145. Telephone follow-up of participants with AF was conducted 9 months after screening. Of 72 participants with newly diagnosed AF and indicated for oral anticoagulation, 47 (65.3%; 95% CI 54.3-76.3%) sought medical attention, 17 (23.6%; 95% CI 13.8-33.4%) received oral anticoagulants, and 16 (22.2%; 95% CI 12.6-31.8%) had 100% compliance. The number needed to screen for 1 appropriately treated newly diagnosed AF was 671. CONCLUSION: This nongovernmental organization-led community-based AF screening program is effective in identifying citizens with newly diagnosed AF. However, the effectiveness of the program in subsequently leading them to receive appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy is weakened by the lack of a more structured downstream management pathway.
BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients older than 65 years is currently recommended. OBJECTIVE: We aim to examine the effectiveness of a nongovernmental organization-led community-based AF screening program carried out by trained layperson volunteers. METHODS:AF screening was performed using a smartphone electrocardiogram in 11,574 participants. RESULTS: Among all participants, smartphone electrocardiograms were interpretable in 10,735 citizens (92.8%; 8564 female citizens [79.8%]; mean age 78.6 ± 8.1 years). Two hundred forty-four participants (2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-2.6%; 172 female participants [70.5%]; mean age 79.5 ± 7.9 years) had AF and were advised over phone by a nurse to seek medical attention. Newly diagnosed AF was found in 74 participants (0.69%; 95% CI 0.54-0.84%) with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.9 ± 1.5. Thirty-six of them (48%; 95% CI 36.6-59.4%) were asymptomatic. The number needed to screen for 1 newly diagnosed AF was 145. Telephone follow-up of participants with AF was conducted 9 months after screening. Of 72 participants with newly diagnosed AF and indicated for oral anticoagulation, 47 (65.3%; 95% CI 54.3-76.3%) sought medical attention, 17 (23.6%; 95% CI 13.8-33.4%) received oral anticoagulants, and 16 (22.2%; 95% CI 12.6-31.8%) had 100% compliance. The number needed to screen for 1 appropriately treated newly diagnosed AF was 671. CONCLUSION: This nongovernmental organization-led community-based AF screening program is effective in identifying citizens with newly diagnosed AF. However, the effectiveness of the program in subsequently leading them to receive appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy is weakened by the lack of a more structured downstream management pathway.
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Christopher D Anderson; Barbara Casadei; Lin Y Chen; Harry J G M Crijns; Ben Freedman; Mellanie True Hills; Jeff S Healey; Hooman Kamel; Dong-Yun Kim; Mark S Link; Renato D Lopes; Steven A Lubitz; David D McManus; Peter A Noseworthy; Marco V Perez; Jonathan P Piccini; Renate B Schnabel; Daniel E Singer; Robert G Tieleman; Mintu P Turakhia; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Lawton S Cooper; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Boyoung Joung; Jung Myung Lee; Ki Hong Lee; Tae Hoon Kim; Eue Keun Choi; Woo Hyun Lim; Ki Woon Kang; Jaemin Shim; Hong Euy Lim; Junbeom Park; So Ryoung Lee; Young Soo Lee; Jin Bae Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Ka Hou Christien Li; Francesca Anne White; Gary Tse; Timothy Tipoe; Tong Liu; Martin Cs Wong; Aaron Jesuthasan; Adrian Baranchuk; Bryan P Yan Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Nu Ri Kim; Chang Kyun Choi; Hyeong-Suk Kim; Su-Hyun Oh; Jung-Hwa Yang; Ki Hong Lee; Ju Han Kim; Man-Seok Park; Hye-Yeon Kim; Min-Ho Shin Journal: Chonnam Med J Date: 2020-01-22