Søren Zöga Diederichsen1, Ketil Jørgen Haugan2, Christian Kronborg3, Claus Graff4, Søren Højberg5, Lars Køber1,6, Derk Krieger7,8, Anders Gaarsdal Holst9, Jonas Bille Nielsen9,10, Axel Brandes11,12, Jesper Hastrup Svendsen1,9,6. 1. Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet (S.Z.D., L.K., J.H.S.). 2. Department of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital Roskilde, Denmark (K.J.H.). 3. Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense (C.K.). 4. Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark (C.G.). 5. Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg Hospital (S.H.). 6. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (L.K., J.H.S.). 7. University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland (D.K.). 8. Stroke Unit, Mediclinic City Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (D.K.). 9. Laboratory for Molecular Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark (A.G.H., J.B.N., J.H.S.). 10. Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark (J.B.N.). 11. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark (A.B.). 12. Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense (A.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is an increasing health problem worldwide. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke, and the attention given to AF screening is rising, as new monitoring technologies emerge. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a large panel of screening strategies and to assess population characteristics associated with diagnostic yield. METHODS: Individuals with stroke risk factors but without AF were recruited from the general population to undergo screening with an implantable loop recorder. New-onset AF lasting ≥6 minutes was adjudicated by senior cardiologists. After continuous monitoring for >3 years, complete day-to-day heart rhythm data sets were reconstructed for every participant, including exact time of onset and termination of all AF episodes. Random sampling was applied to assess the sensitivity and negative predictive value of screening with various simulated screening strategies compared with the implantable loop recorder. The diagnostic yield across strategies and population subgroups was compared by use of nonparametric tests. RESULTS: The rhythm data sets comprised 590 participants enduring a total of 659 758 days of continuous monitoring and 20 110 AF episodes. In these data, a single 10-second ECG yielded a sensitivity (and negative predictive value) of 1.5% (66%) for AF detection, increasing to 8.3% (67%) for twice-daily 30-second ECGs during 14 days and to 11% (68%), 13% (68%), 15% (69%), 21% (70%), and 34% (74%) for a single 24-hour, 48-hour, 72-hour, 7-day, or 30-day continuous monitoring, respectively. AF detection further improved when subsequent screenings were performed or when the same monitoring duration was spread over several periods compared with a single period (eg, three 24-hour monitorings versus one 72-hour monitoring; P<0.0001 for all comparisons). The sensitivity was consistently higher among participants with age ≥75 years, male sex, CHADS2 score >2, or NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) ≥40 pmol/L and among participants with underlying ≥24-hour AF episodes compared with shorter AF (P<0.0001 for all screening strategies). CONCLUSIONS: In screening for AF among participants with stroke risk factors, the diagnostic yield increased with duration, dispersion, and number of screenings, although all strategies had low yield compared with the implantable loop recorder. The sensitivity was higher among participants who were older, were male, or had higher NT-proBNP. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02036450.
BACKGROUND:Stroke is an increasing health problem worldwide. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke, and the attention given to AF screening is rising, as new monitoring technologies emerge. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a large panel of screening strategies and to assess population characteristics associated with diagnostic yield. METHODS: Individuals with stroke risk factors but without AF were recruited from the general population to undergo screening with an implantable loop recorder. New-onset AF lasting ≥6 minutes was adjudicated by senior cardiologists. After continuous monitoring for >3 years, complete day-to-day heart rhythm data sets were reconstructed for every participant, including exact time of onset and termination of all AF episodes. Random sampling was applied to assess the sensitivity and negative predictive value of screening with various simulated screening strategies compared with the implantable loop recorder. The diagnostic yield across strategies and population subgroups was compared by use of nonparametric tests. RESULTS: The rhythm data sets comprised 590 participants enduring a total of 659 758 days of continuous monitoring and 20 110 AF episodes. In these data, a single 10-second ECG yielded a sensitivity (and negative predictive value) of 1.5% (66%) for AF detection, increasing to 8.3% (67%) for twice-daily 30-second ECGs during 14 days and to 11% (68%), 13% (68%), 15% (69%), 21% (70%), and 34% (74%) for a single 24-hour, 48-hour, 72-hour, 7-day, or 30-day continuous monitoring, respectively. AF detection further improved when subsequent screenings were performed or when the same monitoring duration was spread over several periods compared with a single period (eg, three 24-hour monitorings versus one 72-hour monitoring; P<0.0001 for all comparisons). The sensitivity was consistently higher among participants with age ≥75 years, male sex, CHADS2 score >2, or NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) ≥40 pmol/L and among participants with underlying ≥24-hour AF episodes compared with shorter AF (P<0.0001 for all screening strategies). CONCLUSIONS: In screening for AF among participants with stroke risk factors, the diagnostic yield increased with duration, dispersion, and number of screenings, although all strategies had low yield compared with the implantable loop recorder. The sensitivity was higher among participants who were older, were male, or had higher NT-proBNP. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02036450.
Entities:
Keywords:
atrial fibrillation; data science; diagnosis; mass screening; monitoring, physiologic; risk factors
Authors: Frederik H Verbrugge; Yogesh N V Reddy; Zachi I Attia; Paul A Friedman; Peter A Noseworthy; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez; Suraj Kapa; Barry A Borlaug Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Karney Lahad; Elad Maor; Robert Klempfner; Chagai Grossman; Amit Druyan; Ilan Ben-Zvi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Elena Palà; Alejandro Bustamante; Jorge Pagola; Jesus Juega; Jaume Francisco-Pascual; Anna Penalba; Maite Rodriguez; Mercedes De Lera Alfonso; Juan F Arenillas; Juan Antonio Cabezas; Soledad Pérez-Sánchez; Francisco Moniche; Reyes de Torres; Teresa González-Alujas; Josep Lluís Clúa-Espuny; Juan Ballesta-Ors; Domingo Ribas; Juan Acosta; Alonso Pedrote; Felipe Gonzalez-Loyola; Delicia Gentile Lorente; Miguel Ángel Muñoz; Carlos A Molina; Joan Montaner Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-07-04
Authors: Daniel Engler; Coral L Hanson; Lien Desteghe; Giuseppe Boriani; Søren Zöga Diederichsen; Ben Freedman; Elena Palà; Tatjana S Potpara; Henning Witt; Hein Heidbuchel; Lis Neubeck; Renate B Schnabel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 3.006
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: Carlo Mannina; Zhezhen Jin; Kenji Matsumoto; Kazato Ito; Angelo Biviano; Mitchell S V Elkind; Tatjana Rundek; Shunichi Homma; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.039
Authors: Gregory Y H Lip; Deirdre A Lane; Radosław Lenarczyk; Giuseppe Boriani; Wolfram Doehner; Laura A Benjamin; Marc Fisher; Deborah Lowe; Ralph L Sacco; Renate Schnabel; Caroline Watkins; George Ntaios; Tatjana Potpara Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 35.855