Diving to the foot of an iceberg: the SEARCH for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation

Age-and-sex stratified prevalence of atrial fibrillation in rural Western India: Results of SMART-India, a population-based screening study

BACKGROUND

Early detection of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a public health priority across the globe because AF-related strokes are preventable. Despite an ongoing stroke epidemic in India, a public health strategy for AF screening and treatment is missing because the epidemiology of AF in India remains poorly defined.

METHODS

This population-based study used mobile technology to derive age and sex-stratified AF prevalence by screening 7 participants in each of six age and sex strata (age 40-55, 56-65, 65+, and male and female) from 50 villages (2100 participants). A health worker from each village used a handheld digital electrocardiogram (iECG) device (Kardia) to screen for AF on 3 separate days, and administered a questionnaire. All abnormal (AF or unclassified) iECGs were reviewed by the Indian cardiologist and AF determination confirmed by a US-based cardiac electrophysiologist.

RESULTS

Of the 2100 individuals enrolled, iECGs were collected from 2074 participants (98.8%) and 1947 (92.7%) participants responded to the questionnaire. AF was identified in 33 participants (1.6%), two-thirds on the first iECG. AF prevalence was higher among males (2.3% vs 1.0%, p = 0.03) and in older people (0.6%, 0.9%, 2.1%, 5.6%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of AF observed in our population-based sample is comparable to rates found in studies from North America and Western Europe and increases similarly with age. AF screening using village health workers in rural India is feasible and presents an opportunity for a strategy to address the stroke epidemic in India through primary prevention.

Hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias: a consensus document from the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and ESC Council on Hypertension, endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE)

Hypertension is a common cardiovascular risk factor leading to heart failure (HF), coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease and chronic renal insufficiency. Hypertensive heart disease can manifest as many cardiac arrhythmias, most commonly being atrial fibrillation (AF). Both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias may occur in hypertensive patients, especially in those with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) or HF. Also, some of the antihypertensive drugs commonly used to reduce blood pressure, such as thiazide diuretics, may result in electrolyte abnormalities (e.g. hypokalaemia, hypomagnesemia), further contributing to arrhythmias, whereas effective control of blood pressure may prevent the development of the arrhythmias such as AF. In recognizing this close relationship between hypertension and arrhythmias, the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Council on Hypertension convened a Task Force, with representation from the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE), with the remit to comprehensively review the available evidence to publish a joint consensus document on hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias, and to provide up-to-date consensus recommendations for use in clinical practice. The ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and the patient in light of all of the circumstances presented by that patient.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model.

Design

Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

Adults.

Intervention

Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening.

Review methods

Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies.

Results

Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age.

Conclusions

A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations.

Limitations

Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability.

Future work

Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Decision-Making in Clinical Practice: Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and a Single Additional Stroke Risk Factor

Approximately 1 in 3-4 patients presenting with an ischemic stroke will also have atrial fibrillation (AF), and AF-related strokes can be effectively prevented using oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC), either with well-controlled vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). In addition, OAC use (both VKAs and NOACs) is associated with a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (VKAs) or an additional 10% mortality reduction with NOACs relative to VKAs. The decision to use OAC in individual AF patient is based on the estimated balance of the benefit from ischemic stroke reduction against the risk of major OAC-related bleeding [essentially intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)]. Better appreciation of the importance of VKAs' anticoagulation quality [a target time in therapeutic range (TTR) of ≥70%] and the availability of NOACs (which offer better safety compared to VKAs) have decreased the estimated threshold for OAC treatment in AF patients towards lower stroke risk levels. Still, contemporary registry-based data show that OAC is often underused in AF patients at increased risk of stroke. The uncertainty whether to use OAC may be particularly pronounced in AF patients with a single additional stroke risk factor, who are often (mis)perceived as having a "borderline" or insufficient stroke risk to trigger the use of OAC. However, observational data from real-world AF cohorts show that the annual stroke rates in such patients are higher than in patients with no additional stroke risk factors, and OAC use has been associated with reduction in stroke, systemic embolism, or death in comparison to no therapy or aspirin, with no increase in the risk of bleeding relative to aspirin. In this review article, we summarize the basic principles of stroke risk stratification in AF patients and discuss contemporary real-world evidence on OAC use and outcomes of OAC treatment in AF patients with a single additional stroke risk factor in various real-world AF cohorts.

Anticoagulation in patients at high risk of stroke without documented atrial fibrillation. Time for a paradigm shift?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently considered a risk factor for stroke. Depending on the severity of clinical factors (risk scores) a recommendation for full anticoagulation is made. Although AF is most certainly a risk factor for ischemic stroke, it is not necessarily the direct cause of it. The causality of association between AF and ischemic stroke is questioned by the reported lack of temporal relation between stroke events and AF paroxysms (or atrial high-rate episodes detected by devices). In different studies, only 2% of patients had subclinical AF > 6 minutes in duration at the time of stroke or systemic embolism. Is it time to consider AF only one more factor of endothelial disarray rather than the main contributor to stroke? In this "opinion paper" we propose to consider not only clinical variables predicting AF/stroke but also electrocardiographic markers of atrial fibrosis, as we postulate this as a strong indicator of risk of AF/stroke. We ask if it is time to change the paradigm and to consider, in some special situations, to protect patients (preventing stroke) who have no evidence of AF.