Search

Background: Pulse palpation has been recommended as the first step of screening to detect atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine and compare the accuracy of different methods for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until 16 March 2015. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR); we constructed summary receiver operating characteristic plots., Results: Twenty-one studies investigated 39 interventions (n = 15,129 pulse assessments) for detecting atrial fibrillation. Compared to 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) diagnosed atrial fibrillation, blood pressure monitors (BPMs; seven interventions) and non-12-lead ECGs (20 interventions) had the greatest accuracy for detecting pulse irregularities attributable to atrial fibrillation (BPM: sensitivity 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.00), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95), PLR 12.1 (95% CI 8.2-17.8) and NLR 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.09); non-12-lead ECG: sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.97), PLR 20.1 (95% CI 12-33.7), NLR 0.09 (95% CI 0.06-0.14)). There were similar findings for smartphone applications (six interventions) although these studies were small in size. The sensitivity and specificity of pulse palpation (six interventions) were 0.92 (95% CI 0.85-0.96) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.88), respectively (PLR 5.2 (95% CI 3.8-7.2), NLR 0.1 (95% CI 0.05-0.18))., Conclusions: BPMs and non-12-lead ECG were most accurate for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation; other technologies may therefore be pragmatic alternatives to pulse palpation for the first step of atrial fibrillation screening., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2015.)

Introduction: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care has been recommended; however, the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are not known. This study aimed to determine the opinions of HCP about the feasibility of implementing screening within a primary care setting., Methods: A cross-sectional mixed methods census survey of 418 HCPs from 59 inner-city practices (Nottingham, UK) was conducted between October-December 2014. Postal and web-surveys ascertained data on existing methods, knowledge, skills, attitudes, barriers and facilitators to AF screening using Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses, categorized according to HCP group, were summarized using proportions, adjusting for clustering by practice, with 95% C.Is and free-text responses using thematic analysis., Results: At least one General Practitioner (GP) responded from 48 (81%) practices. There were 212/418 (51%) respondents; 118/229 GPs, 67/129 nurses [50 practice nurses; 17 Nurse Practitioners (NPs)], 27/60 healthcare assistants (HCAs). 39/48 (81%) practices had an ECG machine and diagnosed AF in-house. Non-GP HCPs reported having less knowledge about ECG interpretation, diagnosing and treating AF than GPs. A greater proportion of non-GP HCPs reported they would benefit from ECG training specifically for AF diagnosis than GPs [proportion (95% CI) GPs: 11.9% (6.8-20.0); HCAs: 37.0% (21.7-55.5); nurses: 44.0% (30.0-59.0); NPs 41.2% (21.9-63.7)]. Barriers included time, workload and capacity to undertake screening activities, although training to diagnose and manage AF was a required facilitator., Conclusion: Inner-city general practices were found to have adequate access to resources for AF screening. There is enthusiasm by non-GP HCPs to up-skill in the diagnosis and management of AF and they may have a role in future AF screening. However, organisational barriers, such as lack of time, staff and capacity, should be overcome for AF screening to be feasibly implemented within primary care.

Background: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using 12-lead-electrocardiograms (ECGs) has been recommended; however, the best method for interpreting ECGs to diagnose AF is not known. We compared accuracy of methods for diagnosing AF from ECGs., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until March 24, 2014. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR) and enabled construction of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) plots., Results: 10 studies investigated 16 methods for interpreting ECGs (n=55,376 participant ECGs). The sensitivity and specificity of automated software (8 studies; 9 methods) were 0.89 (95% C.I. 0.82-0.93) and 0.99 (95% C.I. 0.99-0.99), respectively; PLR 96.6 (95% C.I. 64.2-145.6); NLR 0.11 (95% C.I. 0.07-0.18). Indirect comparisons with software found healthcare professionals (5 studies; 7 methods) had similar sensitivity for diagnosing AF but lower specificity [sensitivity 0.92 (95% C.I. 0.81-0.97), specificity 0.93 (95% C.I. 0.76-0.98), PLR 13.9 (95% C.I. 3.5-55.3), NLR 0.09 (95% C.I. 0.03-0.22)]. Sub-group analyses of primary care professionals found greater specificity for GPs than nurses [GPs: sensitivity 0.91 (95% C.I. 0.68-1.00); specificity 0.96 (95% C.I. 0.89-1.00). Nurses: sensitivity 0.88 (95% C.I. 0.63-1.00); specificity 0.85 (95% C.I. 0.83-0.87)]., Conclusions: Automated ECG-interpreting software most accurately excluded AF, although its ability to diagnose this was similar to all healthcare professionals. Within primary care, the specificity of AF diagnosis from ECG was greater for GPs than nurses., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Its prevalence increases with age and is estimated at around 5% in those aged 65 years, rising to 10% in the over 80 population. AF usually arises from the left atrium and is commonly referred to as a ‘supraventricular arrhythmia’. It is characterized by rapid, irregular and chaotic electrical atrial activity that results in an irregular ventricular response. AF is no longer considered a benign condition as it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, most notably from its 5-fold increased risk of stroke. With an ever-increasing elderly population, it is unsurprising that AF poses a significant public and health burden and already accounts for about 1% of the National Health Service (NHS) expenditure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the study of the distinct difference between idraparinux with vitamin K antagonist (BKA) for the prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) patient. The research describes AF as the most common sustained arrhythmia with high morbidity and mortility risk. The primary goal of the study is to determine the effectiveness and therapeutic range of anticoagulation in treating atrial thromboembolism patients.