Dataset Information

Validity of daily self-pulse palpation for atrial fibrillation screening in patients 65 years and older: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend (Class IA) single-time-point screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using pulse palpation. The role of pulse palpation for AF detection has not been validated against electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings. We aimed to study the validity of AF screening using self-pulse palpation compared with an ECG recording conducted at the same time using a handheld ECG 3 times a day for 2 weeks.

Methods and findings

In this cross-sectional screening study, patients 65 years of age and older attending 4 primary care centers (PCCs) outside Stockholm County were invited to take part in AF screening from July 2017 to December 2018. Patients were included irrespective of their reason for visiting the PCC. Handheld intermittent ECGs 3 times per day were offered to patients without AF for a period of 2 weeks, and patients were instructed in how to take their own pulse at the same time. A total of 1,010 patients (mean age 73 years, 61% female, with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score 2.9) participated in the study, and 27 (2.7%, 95% CI 1.8%-3.9%) new cases of AF were detected. Anticoagulants (ACs) could be initiated in 26 (96%, 95% CI 81%-100%) of these cases. A total of 53,782 simultaneous ECG recordings and pulse measurements were registered. AF was verified in 311 ECG recordings, of which the pulse was palpated as irregular in 77 recordings (25%, 95% CI 20%-30% sensitivity per measurement occasion). Of the 27 AF cases, 15 cases felt an irregular pulse on at least one occasion (56%, 95% CI 35%-75% sensitivity per individual). 187 individuals without AF felt an irregular pulse on at least one occasion. The specificity per measurement occasion and per individual was (98%, 95% CI 98%-98%) and (81%, 95% CI 78%-83%), respectively.

Conclusions

AF screening using self-pulse palpation 3 times daily for 2 weeks has lower sensitivity compared with simultaneous intermittent ECG. Thus, it may be better to screen for AF using intermittent ECG without stepwise screening using pulse palpation. A limitation of this model could be the reduced availability of handheld ECG recorders in primary care centers.

SUBMITTER: Ghazal F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7108684 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validity of daily self-pulse palpation for atrial fibrillation screening in patients 65 years and older: A cross-sectional study.

Ghazal Faris F Ghazal Faris F Theobald Holger H Rosenqvist Mårten M Al-Khalili Faris F

PLoS medicine 20200331 3

<h4>Background</h4>The European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend (Class IA) single-time-point screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using pulse palpation. The role of pulse palpation for AF detection has not been validated against electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings. We aimed to study the validity of AF screening using self-pulse palpation compared with an ECG recording conducted at the same time using a handheld ECG 3 times a day for 2 weeks.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>In this cross- ...[more]

PMID: 32231369

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dabigatran has been shown to be superior to warfarin for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) but with higher out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although dabigatran has been shown to be cost effective from a societal perspective, cost implications for individual patients and insurers are not well described. We aimed to assess cost perspectives of each payer (Medicare and patient) in relation to administration, monitoring, and adverse outcomes for dabigatran and warfarin in patients with and without prescription drug coverage. Using a Markov model, we performed a decision analysis comparing 2 treatment strategies (dose-adjusted warfarin and dabigatran 150 mg twice daily) in patients 65 years old with NVAF, CHADS2 scores ≥ 1, and Medicare insurance. Patients have a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 8.998 quality-adjusted life years with warfarin and 9.39 quality-adjusted life years with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. From Medicare's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing dabigatran with warfarin was $35,311 for patients with Part D coverage and cost saving for patients without coverage. From the patient's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing dabigatran with warfarin was cost saving for patients with Part D coverage and $63,884 for those without coverage. In patients ≥ 65 years with NVAF and prescription insurance coverage, dabigatran 150 mg twice daily is both cost effective (Medicare's perspective) and cost saving (patient perspective) compared with warfarin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. However, patients without prescription drug coverage have a high out-of-pocket cost burden with dabigatran therapy, leading to a reduction in its cost-effectiveness compared with warfarin therapy. In conclusion, this Markov model suggests that Medicare Part D coverage influences the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg daily compared with dose-adjusted warfarin from multiple payer perspectives.

Dataset Information

Validity of daily self-pulse palpation for atrial fibrillation screening in patients 65 years and older: A cross-sectional study.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Validity of daily self-pulse palpation for atrial fibrillation screening in patients 65 years and older: A cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets