Cargando…
Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Pulse palpation has been recommended as the first step of screening to detect atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine and compare the accuracy of different methods for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CI...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26464292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487315611347 |
_version_ | 1782443773301620736 |
---|---|
author | Taggar, Jaspal S Coleman, Tim Lewis, Sarah Heneghan, Carl Jones, Matthew |
author_facet | Taggar, Jaspal S Coleman, Tim Lewis, Sarah Heneghan, Carl Jones, Matthew |
author_sort | Taggar, Jaspal S |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Pulse palpation has been recommended as the first step of screening to detect atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine and compare the accuracy of different methods for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until 16 March 2015. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR); we constructed summary receiver operating characteristic plots. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies investigated 39 interventions (n = 15,129 pulse assessments) for detecting atrial fibrillation. Compared to 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) diagnosed atrial fibrillation, blood pressure monitors (BPMs; seven interventions) and non-12-lead ECGs (20 interventions) had the greatest accuracy for detecting pulse irregularities attributable to atrial fibrillation (BPM: sensitivity 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–1.00), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95), PLR 12.1 (95% CI 8.2–17.8) and NLR 0.02 (95% CI 0.00–0.09); non-12-lead ECG: sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.94), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.97), PLR 20.1 (95% CI 12–33.7), NLR 0.09 (95% CI 0.06–0.14)). There were similar findings for smartphone applications (six interventions) although these studies were small in size. The sensitivity and specificity of pulse palpation (six interventions) were 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.96) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.88), respectively (PLR 5.2 (95% CI 3.8–7.2), NLR 0.1 (95% CI 0.05–0.18)). CONCLUSIONS: BPMs and non-12-lead ECG were most accurate for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation; other technologies may therefore be pragmatic alternatives to pulse palpation for the first step of atrial fibrillation screening. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4952027 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49520272016-07-28 Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis Taggar, Jaspal S Coleman, Tim Lewis, Sarah Heneghan, Carl Jones, Matthew Eur J Prev Cardiol Prevention BACKGROUND: Pulse palpation has been recommended as the first step of screening to detect atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine and compare the accuracy of different methods for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until 16 March 2015. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR); we constructed summary receiver operating characteristic plots. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies investigated 39 interventions (n = 15,129 pulse assessments) for detecting atrial fibrillation. Compared to 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) diagnosed atrial fibrillation, blood pressure monitors (BPMs; seven interventions) and non-12-lead ECGs (20 interventions) had the greatest accuracy for detecting pulse irregularities attributable to atrial fibrillation (BPM: sensitivity 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–1.00), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95), PLR 12.1 (95% CI 8.2–17.8) and NLR 0.02 (95% CI 0.00–0.09); non-12-lead ECG: sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.94), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.97), PLR 20.1 (95% CI 12–33.7), NLR 0.09 (95% CI 0.06–0.14)). There were similar findings for smartphone applications (six interventions) although these studies were small in size. The sensitivity and specificity of pulse palpation (six interventions) were 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.96) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.88), respectively (PLR 5.2 (95% CI 3.8–7.2), NLR 0.1 (95% CI 0.05–0.18)). CONCLUSIONS: BPMs and non-12-lead ECG were most accurate for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation; other technologies may therefore be pragmatic alternatives to pulse palpation for the first step of atrial fibrillation screening. SAGE Publications 2015-10-13 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4952027/ /pubmed/26464292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487315611347 Text en © The European Society of Cardiology 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Prevention Taggar, Jaspal S Coleman, Tim Lewis, Sarah Heneghan, Carl Jones, Matthew Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Prevention |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26464292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487315611347 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taggarjaspals accuracyofmethodsfordetectinganirregularpulseandsuspectedatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT colemantim accuracyofmethodsfordetectinganirregularpulseandsuspectedatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lewissarah accuracyofmethodsfordetectinganirregularpulseandsuspectedatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT heneghancarl accuracyofmethodsfordetectinganirregularpulseandsuspectedatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT jonesmatthew accuracyofmethodsfordetectinganirregularpulseandsuspectedatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |