Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Eur J Intern Med. 2022 Nov;105:38-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.07.015. Epub 2022 Aug 8.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the optimal screening strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) have yielded conflicting results.
To examine the comparative efficacy of different AF screening strategies in older adults.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane without language restrictions through January 2022, for RCTs evaluating the outcomes of non-invasive AF screening approaches among adults ≥65 years. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing any AF screening approach versus no screening, and a network meta-analysis comparing systematic screening versus opportunistic screening versus no screening. The primary outcome was new AF detection.
The final analysis included 9 RCTs with 85,209 patients. The weighted median follow-up was 12 months. The mean age was 73.4 years and men represented 45.6%. On pairwise meta-analysis, any AF screening (either systematic or opportunistic) was associated with higher AF detection (1.8% vs. 1.3%; risk ratio [RR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-3.65) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 3.26; 95%CI 1.15-9.23), compared with no screening. There was no significant difference between any AF screening versus no screening in all-cause mortality (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.93-1.01) or acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.84-1.01). On network meta-analysis, only systematic screening was associated with higher AF detection (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.62-4.59) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 5.67; 95% CI 2.68-11.99), but not with the opportunistic screening, compared with no screening.
Systematic AF screening using non-invasive tools was associated with higher rate of new AF detection and initiation of OAC, but opportunistic screening was not associated with higher detection rates. There were no significant differences between the various AF screening approaches with respect to rates of all-cause mortality or CVA events. However, these analyses are likely underpowered and future RCTs are needed to examine the impact of systematic AF screening on mortality and CVA outcomes.
None.
随机对照试验(RCT)研究表明,房颤(AF)的最佳筛查策略存在争议。
研究不同 AF 筛查策略在老年人中的比较效果。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库,无语言限制,检索时间截至 2022 年 1 月,评估了≥65 岁成年人非侵入性 AF 筛查方法的结局。我们进行了一项配对荟萃分析,比较了任何 AF 筛查方法与不筛查,以及一项网络荟萃分析,比较了系统筛查与机会性筛查与不筛查。主要结局是新的 AF 检测。
最终分析纳入了 9 项 RCT,共 85209 例患者。加权中位随访时间为 12 个月。平均年龄为 73.4 岁,男性占 45.6%。在成对荟萃分析中,任何 AF 筛查(无论是系统筛查还是机会性筛查)都与更高的 AF 检出率(1.8% vs. 1.3%;风险比[RR]2.10;95%置信区间[CI]1.20-3.65)和口服抗凝剂的起始使用(RR 3.26;95%CI 1.15-9.23)相关,与不筛查相比。在任何 AF 筛查与不筛查之间,全因死亡率(RR 0.97;95%CI 0.93-1.01)或急性脑血管意外(CVA)(RR 0.92;95%CI 0.84-1.01)无显著差异。在网络荟萃分析中,只有系统筛查与更高的 AF 检出率(RR 2.73;95%CI 1.62-4.59)和口服抗凝剂的起始使用(RR 5.67;95%CI 2.68-11.99)相关,但与机会性筛查相比,与不筛查相比,并不与更高的检出率相关。
使用非侵入性工具进行系统的 AF 筛查与更高的新发 AF 检出率和口服抗凝剂的起始使用相关,但机会性筛查与更高的检出率无关。在各种 AF 筛查方法之间,全因死亡率或 CVA 事件发生率没有显著差异。然而,这些分析可能存在效能不足,需要未来的 RCT 来研究系统 AF 筛查对死亡率和 CVA 结局的影响。
无。