Cargando…

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening is endorsed by certain guidelines for individuals aged ≥65 years. Yet many AF screening strategies exist, including the use of wrist‐worn wearable devices, and their comparative effectiveness is not well‐understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khurshid, Shaan, Chen, Wanyi, Singer, Daniel E., Atlas, Steven J., Ashburner, Jeffrey M., Choi, Jin G., Hur, Chin, Ellinor, Patrick T., McManus, David D., Chhatwal, Jagpreet, Lubitz, Steven A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020330
_version_ 1784611008409501696
author Khurshid, Shaan
Chen, Wanyi
Singer, Daniel E.
Atlas, Steven J.
Ashburner, Jeffrey M.
Choi, Jin G.
Hur, Chin
Ellinor, Patrick T.
McManus, David D.
Chhatwal, Jagpreet
Lubitz, Steven A.
author_facet Khurshid, Shaan
Chen, Wanyi
Singer, Daniel E.
Atlas, Steven J.
Ashburner, Jeffrey M.
Choi, Jin G.
Hur, Chin
Ellinor, Patrick T.
McManus, David D.
Chhatwal, Jagpreet
Lubitz, Steven A.
author_sort Khurshid, Shaan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening is endorsed by certain guidelines for individuals aged ≥65 years. Yet many AF screening strategies exist, including the use of wrist‐worn wearable devices, and their comparative effectiveness is not well‐understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a decision‐analytic model simulating 50 million individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the United States population aged ≥65 years (ie, with a guideline‐based AF screening indication). We modeled no screening, in addition to 45 distinct AF screening strategies (comprising different modalities and screening intervals), each initiated at a clinical encounter. The primary effectiveness measure was quality‐adjusted life‐years, with incident stroke and major bleeding as secondary measures. We defined continuous or nearly continuous modalities as those capable of monitoring beyond a single time‐point (eg, patch monitor), and discrete modalities as those capable of only instantaneous AF detection (eg, 12‐lead ECG). In total, 10 AF screening strategies were effective compared with no screening (300–1500 quality‐adjusted life‐years gained/100 000 individuals screened). Nine (90%) effective strategies involved use of a continuous or nearly continuous modality such as patch monitor or wrist‐worn wearable device, whereas 1 (10%) relied on discrete modalities alone. Effective strategies reduced stroke incidence (number needed to screen to prevent a stroke: 3087–4445) but increased major bleeding (number needed to screen to cause a major bleed: 1815–4049) and intracranial hemorrhage (number needed to screen to cause intracranial hemorrhage: 7693–16 950). The test specificity was a highly influential model parameter on screening effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: When modeled from a clinician‐directed perspective, the comparative effectiveness of population‐based AF screening varies substantially upon the specific strategy used. Future screening interventions and guidelines should consider the relative effectiveness of specific AF screening strategies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8649502
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86495022021-12-20 Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model Khurshid, Shaan Chen, Wanyi Singer, Daniel E. Atlas, Steven J. Ashburner, Jeffrey M. Choi, Jin G. Hur, Chin Ellinor, Patrick T. McManus, David D. Chhatwal, Jagpreet Lubitz, Steven A. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening is endorsed by certain guidelines for individuals aged ≥65 years. Yet many AF screening strategies exist, including the use of wrist‐worn wearable devices, and their comparative effectiveness is not well‐understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a decision‐analytic model simulating 50 million individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the United States population aged ≥65 years (ie, with a guideline‐based AF screening indication). We modeled no screening, in addition to 45 distinct AF screening strategies (comprising different modalities and screening intervals), each initiated at a clinical encounter. The primary effectiveness measure was quality‐adjusted life‐years, with incident stroke and major bleeding as secondary measures. We defined continuous or nearly continuous modalities as those capable of monitoring beyond a single time‐point (eg, patch monitor), and discrete modalities as those capable of only instantaneous AF detection (eg, 12‐lead ECG). In total, 10 AF screening strategies were effective compared with no screening (300–1500 quality‐adjusted life‐years gained/100 000 individuals screened). Nine (90%) effective strategies involved use of a continuous or nearly continuous modality such as patch monitor or wrist‐worn wearable device, whereas 1 (10%) relied on discrete modalities alone. Effective strategies reduced stroke incidence (number needed to screen to prevent a stroke: 3087–4445) but increased major bleeding (number needed to screen to cause a major bleed: 1815–4049) and intracranial hemorrhage (number needed to screen to cause intracranial hemorrhage: 7693–16 950). The test specificity was a highly influential model parameter on screening effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: When modeled from a clinician‐directed perspective, the comparative effectiveness of population‐based AF screening varies substantially upon the specific strategy used. Future screening interventions and guidelines should consider the relative effectiveness of specific AF screening strategies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8649502/ /pubmed/34476979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020330 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Khurshid, Shaan
Chen, Wanyi
Singer, Daniel E.
Atlas, Steven J.
Ashburner, Jeffrey M.
Choi, Jin G.
Hur, Chin
Ellinor, Patrick T.
McManus, David D.
Chhatwal, Jagpreet
Lubitz, Steven A.
Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model
title Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model
title_full Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model
title_fullStr Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model
title_short Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Population‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Using Contemporary Modalities: A Decision‐Analytic Model
title_sort comparative clinical effectiveness of population‐based atrial fibrillation screening using contemporary modalities: a decision‐analytic model
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020330
work_keys_str_mv AT khurshidshaan comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT chenwanyi comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT singerdaniele comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT atlasstevenj comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT ashburnerjeffreym comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT choijing comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT hurchin comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT ellinorpatrickt comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT mcmanusdavidd comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT chhatwaljagpreet comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel
AT lubitzstevena comparativeclinicaleffectivenessofpopulationbasedatrialfibrillationscreeningusingcontemporarymodalitiesadecisionanalyticmodel