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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taggar, Jaspal S, Coleman, Tim, Lewis, Sarah, Heneghan, Carl, Jones, Matthew
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