Cargando…
Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and prevalence is predicted to double over the next 30 years due to changing demographics and the rise in prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Atrial fibrillation is associated with a five-fold increased stroke r...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060457/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31811716 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz834 |
_version_ | 1783504236245417984 |
---|---|
author | Jones, Nicholas R Taylor, Clare J Hobbs, F D Richard Bowman, Louise Casadei, Barbara |
author_facet | Jones, Nicholas R Taylor, Clare J Hobbs, F D Richard Bowman, Louise Casadei, Barbara |
author_sort | Jones, Nicholas R |
collection | PubMed |
description | Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and prevalence is predicted to double over the next 30 years due to changing demographics and the rise in prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Atrial fibrillation is associated with a five-fold increased stroke risk, but anticoagulation in eligible patients can reduce this risk by around 65%. Many people with AF currently go undetected and therefore untreated, either because they are asymptomatic or because they have paroxysmal AF. Screening has been suggested as one approach to increase AF detection rates and reduce the incidence of ischaemic stroke by earlier initiation of anticoagulation therapy. However, international taskforces currently recommend against screening, citing the cost implications and uncertainty over the benefits of a systematic screening programme compared to usual care. A number of large randomized controlled trials have commenced to determine the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of screening using a range of devices and across different populations. The recent AppleWatch study demonstrates how advances in technology are providing the public with self-screening devices that are increasingly affordable and accessible. Health care professionals should be aware of the implications of these emerging data for diagnostic pathways and treatment. This review provides an overview of the gaps in the current evidence and a summary of the arguments for and against screening. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7060457 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70604572020-03-11 Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence Jones, Nicholas R Taylor, Clare J Hobbs, F D Richard Bowman, Louise Casadei, Barbara Eur Heart J Clinical Review Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and prevalence is predicted to double over the next 30 years due to changing demographics and the rise in prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Atrial fibrillation is associated with a five-fold increased stroke risk, but anticoagulation in eligible patients can reduce this risk by around 65%. Many people with AF currently go undetected and therefore untreated, either because they are asymptomatic or because they have paroxysmal AF. Screening has been suggested as one approach to increase AF detection rates and reduce the incidence of ischaemic stroke by earlier initiation of anticoagulation therapy. However, international taskforces currently recommend against screening, citing the cost implications and uncertainty over the benefits of a systematic screening programme compared to usual care. A number of large randomized controlled trials have commenced to determine the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of screening using a range of devices and across different populations. The recent AppleWatch study demonstrates how advances in technology are providing the public with self-screening devices that are increasingly affordable and accessible. Health care professionals should be aware of the implications of these emerging data for diagnostic pathways and treatment. This review provides an overview of the gaps in the current evidence and a summary of the arguments for and against screening. Oxford University Press 2020-03-07 2019-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7060457/ /pubmed/31811716 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz834 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Review Jones, Nicholas R Taylor, Clare J Hobbs, F D Richard Bowman, Louise Casadei, Barbara Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
title | Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
title_full | Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
title_fullStr | Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
title_full_unstemmed | Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
title_short | Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
title_sort | screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence |
topic | Clinical Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060457/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31811716 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz834 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jonesnicholasr screeningforatrialfibrillationacallforevidence AT taylorclarej screeningforatrialfibrillationacallforevidence AT hobbsfdrichard screeningforatrialfibrillationacallforevidence AT bowmanlouise screeningforatrialfibrillationacallforevidence AT casadeibarbara screeningforatrialfibrillationacallforevidence |