Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyDiagnostic or prognostic study

Comprehensive Evaluation of Rhythm Monitoring Strategies in Screening for Atrial Fibrillation

CirculationPublished

  • Diagnostic accuracy study
  • simulated screening strategies vs implantable loop recorder

Authors' conclusion

In screening for AF among participants with stroke risk factors, the diagnostic yield increased with duration, dispersion, and number of screenings, although all strategies had low yield compared with the implantable loop recorder. The sensitivity was higher among participants who were older, were male, or had higher NT-proBNP.

Study context

Population
Individuals with stroke risk factors but without atrial fibrillation (AF), recruited from the general population
Participants
590 individuals
Comparison
Simulated AF screening strategies vs implantable loop recorder
Outcome
Sensitivity and NPV for AF detection (new-onset AF ≥6 minutes)

Performance

As reported in the abstract

Sensitivity (NPV) for AF detection vs implantable loop recorder
Test or modelSensitivityNPV
Single 10-second ECG1.5%66%
Twice-daily 30-second ECGs during 14 days8.3%67%
24-hour monitoring11%68%
48-hour monitoring13%68%
72-hour monitoring15%69%
7-day monitoring21%70%
30-day monitoring34%74%

Further findings

AF detection with repeated or dispersed screening

AF detection improved with subsequent screenings or same duration spread over several periods vs a single period (eg, three 24-hour vs one 72-hour monitoring)
P < 0.0001
  • P<0.0001 for all comparisons

Sensitivity by subgroup

Sensitivity consistently higher with age ≥75 years, male sex, CHADS2 score >2, NT-proBNP ≥40 pmol/L, and underlying ≥24-hour AF episodes vs shorter AF
P < 0.0001
  • P<0.0001 for all screening strategies

Original publication

Comprehensive Evaluation of Rhythm Monitoring Strategies in Screening for Atrial Fibrillation. Circulation. Published 2 March 2020. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.119.044407

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it