Dataset Information

Atrial fibrillation detection using single lead portable electrocardiographic monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Recent technology advances have allowed for heart rhythm monitoring using single-lead ECG monitoring devices, which can be used for early diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to investigate the AF detection rate using portable ECG devices compared with Holter monitoring.

Setting, participants and outcome measures

We searched the Medline, Embase and Scopus databases (conducted on 8 May 2017) using search terms related to AF screening and included studies with adults aged >18 years using portable ECG devices or Holter monitoring for AF detection. We excluded studies using implantable loop recorders and pacemakers. Using a random-effects model we calculated the overall AF detection rate. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore potential sources for heterogeneity. Quality of reporting was assessed using the tool developed by Downs and Black.

Results

Portable ECG monitoring was used in 18 studies (n=117?436) and Holter monitoring was used in 36 studies (n=8498). The AF detection rate using portable ECG monitoring was 1.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.1), with significant heterogeneity between studies (p<0.001). There was a moderate linear relationship between total monitoring time and AF detection rate (r=0.65, p=0.003), and meta-regression identified total monitoring time (p=0.005) and body mass index (p=0.01) as potential contributors to heterogeneity. The detection rate (4.8%, 95%?CI 3.6% to 6.0%) in eight studies (n=10?199), which performed multiple ECG recordings was comparable to that with 24?hours Holter (4.6%, 95%?CI 3.5% to 5.7%). Intermittent recordings for 19?min total produced similar AF detection to 24?hours Holter monitoring.

Conclusion

Portable ECG devices may offer an efficient screening option for AF compared with 24?hours Holter monitoring.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017061021.

SUBMITTER: Ramkumar S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6144487 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Atrial fibrillation detection using single lead portable electrocardiographic monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ramkumar Satish S Nerlekar Nitesh N D'Souza Daniel D Pol Derek J DJ Kalman Jonathan M JM Marwick Thomas H TH

BMJ open 20180917 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>Recent technology advances have allowed for heart rhythm monitoring using single-lead ECG monitoring devices, which can be used for early diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to investigate the AF detection rate using portable ECG devices compared with Holter monitoring.<h4>Setting, participants and outcome measures</h4>We searched the Medline, Embase and Scopus databases (conducted on 8 May 2017) using search terms related to AF screening and included studies with ...[more]

PMID: 30224404

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe relative rates of detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter from evaluating patients with prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring with an external loop recorder or implantable loop recorder after an ischemic stroke are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine, in patients with a recent ischemic stroke, whether 12 months of implantable loop recorder monitoring detects more occurrences of AF compared with conventional external loop recorder monitoring for 30 days.Design, setting, and participantsInvestigator-initiated, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 university hospitals and 1 community hospital in Alberta, Canada, including 300 patients within 6 months of ischemic stroke and without known AF from May 2015 through November 2017; final follow-up was in December 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned 1:1 to prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring with either an implantable loop recorder (n = 150) or an external loop recorder (n = 150) with follow-up visits at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the development of definite AF or highly probable AF (adjudicated new AF lasting ≥2 minutes within 12 months of randomization). There were 8 prespecified secondary outcomes including time to event analysis of new AF, recurrent ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, death, and device-related serious adverse events within 12 months.ResultsAmong the 300 patients who were randomized (median age, 64.1 years [interquartile range, 56.1 to 73.7 years]; 121 were women [40.3%]; and 66.3% had a stroke of undetermined etiology with a median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category] score of 4 [interquartile range, 3 to 5]), 273 (91.0%) completed cardiac monitoring lasting 24 hours or longer and 259 (86.3%) completed both the assigned monitoring and 12-month follow-up visit. The primary outcome was observed in 15.3% (23/150) of patients in the implantable loop recorder group and 4.7% (7/150) of patients in the external loop recorder group (between-group difference, 10.7% [95% CI, 4.0% to 17.3%]; risk ratio, 3.29 [95% CI, 1.45 to 7.42]; P = .003). Of the 8 specified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different. There were 5 patients (3.3%) in the implantable loop recorder group who had recurrent ischemic stroke vs 8 patients (5.3%) in the external loop recorder group (between-group difference, -2.0% [95% CI, -6.6% to 2.6%]), 1 (0.7%) vs 1 (0.7%), respectively, who had intracerebral hemorrhage (between-group difference, 0% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.8%]), 3 (2.0%) vs 3 (2.0%) who died (between-group difference, 0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 3.2%]), and 1 (0.7%) vs 0 (0%) who had device-related serious adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with ischemic stroke and no prior evidence of AF, implantable electrocardiographic monitoring for 12 months, compared with prolonged external monitoring for 30 days, resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients with AF detected over 12 months. Further research is needed to compare clinical outcomes associated with these monitoring strategies and relative cost-effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02428140.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing prevalence of atrial fibrillation has a significant impact on health, society, and healthcare resource utilization, due to increased morbidity, mortality, risk of stroke, and reduction in quality of life. Early diagnosis allows for treatment initiation, a reduction in complications and associated costs, and so innovation to improve screening and enable easy access are needed Developments in digital technology have significantly contributed to the availability of screening tools. The single-lead electrocardiogram AliveCor (Mountainview, CA) device offers the opportunity to provide heart rhythm screening and has been used extensively in clinical practice and research studies.MethodsThis review investigates the feasibility, validity, and utility of the AliveCor device as a tool for atrial fibrillation detection in clinical practice and in wider research. Databases searched included PUBMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and World of Science, plus grey literature search. Search terms related to atrial fibrillation, screening, and AliveCor with adults >18 years. Feasibility metrics were applied including process, resource, management, and scientific outcomes. Studies not written in the English language were excluded. Validity of AliveCor was explored by extracting sensitivity and specificity data from eligible studies and overall effectiveness analyzed by incorporating the above, with wider issues surrounding screening approaches, cost effectiveness and appropriateness of AliveCor as a screening tool.ResultsThe AliveCor device screening was reviewed in 11 studies matching inclusion criteria. Atrial fibrillation detection rates ranged from 0.8% to 36% and this largely correlated to the study population, where wider age inclusion and mass/population screening represented lower atrial fibrillation detection. Recruitment from higher-risk groups (older age, targeted localities, chronic disease) identified higher numbers with atrial fibrillation. Feasibility metrics demonstrated AliveCor as an effective tool of choice in terms of process, resources, and management. Duration of screening time had an impact on rates of atrial fibrillation detection. There was however significant heterogeneity between studies reviewed.ConclusionThe AliveCor device offers a convenient, valid, and feasible means of monitoring for atrial fibrillation. Further analysis of electrocardiograms produced by AliveCor may be necessary in some circumstances. The AliveCor electrocardiogram device can be successfully implemented into both opportunistic and systematic screening strategies for atrial fibrillation.

Dataset Information

Atrial fibrillation detection using single lead portable electrocardiographic monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives

Setting, participants and outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Prospero registration number

Publications

Atrial fibrillation detection using single lead portable electrocardiographic monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets