Effectiveness of screening for atrial fibrillation and its determinants. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Many atrial fibrillation patients eligible for oral anticoagulants are unaware of the presence of AF, and improved detection is necessary to facilitate thromboprophylaxis against stroke.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of screening for AF compared to no screening and to compare efficacy outcomes of different screening strategies.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE from Jan 1, 2000 -Dec 31, 2015 were searched. Studies employing systematic or opportunistic screening and using ECG or pulse palpation in populations age ≥40 years were included. Data describing study and patient characteristics and number of patients with new AF were extracted. The outcome was the incidence of previously undiagnosed AF.

RESULTS

We identified 25 unique (3 RCTs and 22 observational) studies (n = 88 786) from 14 countries. The incidence of newly detected AF due to screening was 1.5% (95% CI 1.1 to 1.8%). Systematic screening was more effective than opportunistic: 1.8% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3%) vs. 1.1% (95% CI 0.6 to 1.6%), p<0.05, GP-led screening than community based: 1.9% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.4%) vs. 1.1% (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6%), p<0.05, and repeated heart rhythm measurements than isolated assessments of rhythm: 2.1% (95% CI 1.5-2.8) vs. 1.2% (95% CI 0.8-1.6), p<0.05. Only heart rhythm measurement frequency had statistical significance in a multivariate meta-regression model (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Active screening for AF, whether systematic or opportunistic, is effective beginning from 40 years of age. The organisation of screening process may be more important than technical solutions used for heart rhythm assessment.