Quinn F Russell, Gladstone David J, Ivers Noah M, Sandhu Roopinder K, Dolovich Lisa, Ling Andrea, Nakamya Juliet, Ramasundarahettige Chinthanie, Frydrych Paul A, Henein Sam, Ng Ken, Congdon Valerie, Birtwhistle Richard V, Ward Richard, Healey Jeffrey S
Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta (Quinn), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; Division of Neurology (Gladstone), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Sunnybrook Research Institute, and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Ivers), Women's College Hospital - University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; University of Alberta (Sandhu), Edmonton, Alta.; Department of Family Medicine (Dolovich), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Population Health Research Institute (Ling, Nakamya, Ramasundarahettige, Healey), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Mount Dennis Weston Health Centre (Frydrych), Toronto, Ont.; SKDS Research Inc. (Henein), Newmarket, Ont.; Ken Ng Family Practice (Ng), Markham, Ont.; Foothills Family Medical Centre (Congdon), Black Diamond, Alta.; Department of Family Medicine (Birtwhistle), Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.; Crowfoot Village Family Practice (Ward), Calgary, Alta.
CMAJ Open. 2018 Aug 2;6(3):E308-E315. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20180001. Print 2018 Jul-Sep.
Detection of undiagnosed or undertreated ("actionable") atrial fibrillation could increase the use of appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy and reduce the risk of stroke. We sought to compare newer screening technologies with a pulse-check for the detection of atrial fibrillation and to determine whether the detection of actionable atrial fibrillation increases the use of oral anticoagulant agents.
This prospective multicentre cohort study involved 22 primary care clinics. We recruited participants aged 65 years and older who were attending routine appointments. Each participant underwent 3 methods of screening: a 30-second radial pulse-check; single-lead electrocardiogram; and screening by blood pressure machine with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms. Participants who received a positive result on 1 or more test underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram with or withour 24-hour Holter. Screening tests were compared using the McNemar test. Participants with confirmed atrial fibrillation received follow-up at 90 days.
The mean age of participants was 73.7 (± 6.9) years, and 53.4% of participants were female. Of 2171 patients, we had data from all 3 screening tests for 2054 patients. Both single-lead electrocardiogram and the blood pressure device showed superior specificity compared with pulse-check ( < 0.001 for each). Fifty-six patients (2.7%) had confirmed atrial fibrillation: 12 patients had newly detected atrial fibrillation (none of the patients were using anticoagulation agents), and 44 patients had previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation (42 patients were receiving anticoagulant therapy, 2 were not). Thus, 14 patients had actionable atrial fibrillation (0.7%). By 90 days, 77% of patients with actionable atrial fibrillation had started anticoagulant therapy.
Newer screening technologies showed superior specificity compared with a pulse-check. Screening detected undiagnosed or undertreated atrial fibrillation in 0.7% of participants, and 77% started appropriate anticoagulant therapy.
ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02262351.
检测未诊断或治疗不足(“可干预”)的心房颤动可增加适当口服抗凝治疗的使用,并降低中风风险。我们试图比较新型筛查技术与脉搏检查对心房颤动的检测效果,并确定可干预心房颤动的检测是否会增加口服抗凝剂的使用。
这项前瞻性多中心队列研究涉及22家初级保健诊所。我们招募了65岁及以上参加常规门诊的参与者。每位参与者接受3种筛查方法:30秒桡动脉脉搏检查;单导联心电图;以及使用带有心房颤动检测算法的血压计进行筛查。1项或多项检查结果呈阳性的参与者接受12导联心电图检查,可选择进行或不进行24小时动态心电图监测。使用McNemar检验比较筛查试验。确诊为心房颤动的参与者在90天时接受随访。
参与者的平均年龄为73.7(±6.9)岁,53.4%的参与者为女性。在2171名患者中,我们获得了2054名患者的所有3项筛查试验数据。与脉搏检查相比,单导联心电图和血压计均显示出更高的特异性(每项均<0.001)。56名患者(2.7%)确诊为心房颤动:12名患者为新检测出的心房颤动(所有患者均未使用抗凝剂),44名患者为先前诊断的心房颤动(42名患者接受抗凝治疗,2名未接受)。因此,14名患者存在可干预的心房颤动(0.7%)。到90天时,77%的可干预心房颤动患者开始接受抗凝治疗。
与脉搏检查相比,新型筛查技术显示出更高的特异性。筛查在0.7%的参与者中检测出未诊断或治疗不足的心房颤动,且77%的患者开始接受适当的抗凝治疗。
ClinicalTrials.gov,编号NCT02262351。