Burden of atrial high-rate episodes and risk of stroke: a systematic review.

Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients have increased risk of stroke. In paroxysmal AF, the combination of duration and frequency of episodes defines AF burden. In patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) can be monitored continuously and are considered as a proxy for AF. This systematic review aims to determine the relationship between AF burden and risk of thrombo-embolic events (TBEs). Methods and results: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases and performed a review and meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported rhythm registration with specified AF burden and 3 months of follow-up for TBEs. Of the 8849 identified publications, 7 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 18 943 included patients, 215 (1.1%) patients developed a TBE. We detected only studies registering AHRE with a duration over 5 min detected by CIED. In a meta-analysis, patients with an AHRE burden over 6 min had an increased risk of TBE when compared with patients without AHRE, but this risk did not increase for an AHRE burden over 6 h [hazard ratio (HR) 1.82 vs. 1.78]. In a second meta-analysis, only patients with AHRE burden over 24 h had an increased risk for stroke (HR 3.2, 95% confidence interval 1.75-5.86), while patients with an AHRE burden shorter than 24 h did not. Conclusion: Patients with an AHRE burden over 6 min have an increased risk for stroke. A trend in which a higher AHRE burden leads to a higher risk for TBEs was observed but not substantiated due to heterogeneity and low numbers.

Experiences with screening for atrial fibrillation: a qualitative study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend screening for atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently, screening is not considered standard care among GPs. AIM: To explore the experiences of primary care workers with different methods of screening for AF and with implementation in daily practice. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with GPs, nurses, and healthcare assistants (HCAs) who were experienced with implementing different methods of screening. METHOD: Two independent researchers audio-recorded and analysed interviews using a thematic approach. They asked participants about their experiences with the different methods used for screening AF and which obstacles they faced when implementing screening in daily practice. RESULTS: In total 15 GPs, nurse practitioners, and HCAs from seven different practices were interviewed. The GP's office is suited for screening for AF, which ideally should be integrated with standard care. Participants considered pulse palpation, automated sphygmomanometer with AF detection, and single-lead electrocardiography (ECG) as practical tests. Participants trusted pulse palpation over the algorithm of the devices. The follow-up of a positive test with a time-consuming 12-lead ECG hindered integration of screening. The single-lead ECG device reduced the need for immediate follow-up because it can record a rhythm strip. The extra workload of screening and lack of financial coverage form obstacles for implementation. CONCLUSION: Pulse palpation, automated blood pressure measure monitors with AF detection, and single-lead ECGs might facilitate screening in a general practice setting. When implementing screening, focus should be on how to avoid disruption of consultation hours by unplanned 12-lead ECGs.

Detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care with radial pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement and handheld single-lead electrocardiography: a diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of three tests-radial pulse palpation, an electronic blood pressure monitor and a handheld single-lead ECG device-for opportunistic screening for unknown atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: We performed a diagnostic accuracy study in the intention-to-screen arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial aimed at opportunistic screening for AF in general practice. We performed radial pulse palpation, followed by electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A) and handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) in random order. If one or more index tests were positive, we performed a 12-lead ECG at shortest notice. Similarly, to limit verification bias, a random sample of patients with three negative index tests received this reference test. Additionally, we analysed the dataset using multiple imputation. We present pooled diagnostic parameters. SETTING: 47 general practices participated between September 2015 and August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In the electronic medical record system of the participating general practices (n=47), we randomly marked 200 patients of ≥65 years without AF. When they visited the practice for any reason, we invited them to participate. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, inability to give informed consent or visit the practice or having a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. OUTCOMES: Diagnostic accuracy of individual tests and test combinations to detect unknown AF. RESULTS: We included 4339 patients; 0.8% showed new AF. Sensitivity and specificity were 62.8% (range 43.1%-69.7%) and 91.8% (91.7%-91.8%) for radial pulse palpation, 70.0% (49.0%-80.6%) and 96.5% (96.3%-96.7%) for electronic blood pressure measurement and 90.1% (60.8%-100%) and 97.9% (97.8%-97.9%) for handheld ECG, respectively. Positive predictive values were 5.8% (5.3%-6.1%), 13.8% (12.2%-14.8%) and 25.2% (24.2%-25.8%), respectively. All negative predictive values were ≥99.7%. CONCLUSION: In detecting AF, electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A), but especially handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) showed better diagnostic accuracy than radial pulse palpation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register No. NL4776 (old NTR4914).

Screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in primary care using Holter monitoring and intermittent, ambulatory single-lead electrocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Timely detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important because of its increased risk of thrombo-embolic events. Single time point screening interventions fall short in detection of paroxysmal AF, which requires prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring, usually using a Holter. However, traditional 24-48 h Holter monitoring is less appropriate for screening purposes because of its low diagnostic yield. Intermittent, ambulatory screening using a single-lead electrocardiogram (1 L-ECG) device can offer a more efficient alternative. METHODS: Primary care patients of ≥65 years participated in an opportunistic screening study for AF. We invited patients with a negative 12 L-ECG to wear a Holter monitor for two weeks and to use a MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device thrice daily. We report the yield of paroxysmal AF found by Holter monitoring and calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the 1 L-ECG device's built-in AF detection algorithm with the Holter monitor as reference standard. RESULTS: We included 270 patients, of whom four had AF in a median of 8.0 days of Holter monitoring, a diagnostic yield of 1.5% (95%-CI: 0.4-3.8%). In 205 patients we performed simultaneous 1 L-ECG screening. For diagnosing AF based on the 1 L-ECG device's AF detection algorithm, sensitivity was 66.7% (95%-CI: 9.4-99.2%), specificity 68.8% (95%-CI: 61.9-75.1%), positive predictive value 3.1% (95%-CI: 1.4-6.8%) and negative predictive value 99.3% (95%-CI: 96.6-99.9%). CONCLUSION: We found a low diagnostic yield of paroxysmal AF using Holter monitoring in elderly primary care patients with a negative 12 L-ECG. The diagnostic accuracy of an intermittently, ambulatory used MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device as interpreted by its built-in AF detection algorithm is limited.

Opportunistic screening versus usual care for detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether opportunistic screening in primary care increases the detection of atrial fibrillation compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 47 intention-to-screen and 49 usual care primary care practices in the Netherlands, not blinded for allocation; the study was carried out from September 2015 to August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In each practice, a fixed sample of 200 eligible patients, aged 65 or older, with no known history of atrial fibrillation in the electronic medical record system, were randomly selected. In the intention-to-screen group, 9218 patients eligible for screening were included, 55.0% women, mean age 75.2 years. In the usual care group, 9526 patients were eligible for screening, 54.3% women, mean age 75.0 years. INTERVENTIONS: Opportunistic screening (that is, screening in patients visiting their general practice) consisted of three index tests: pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement with an atrial fibrillation algorithm, and electrocardiography (ECG) with a handheld single lead electrocardiographic device. The reference standard was 12 lead ECG, performed in patients with at least one positive index test and in a sample of patients (10%) with three negative tests. If 12 lead ECG showed no atrial fibrillation, patients were invited for more screening by continuous monitoring with a Holter electrocardiograph for two weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in the detection rate of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation over one year in intention-to-screen versus usual care practices. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 8874 patients in the intention-to-screen practices and for 9102 patients in the usual care practices. 144 (1.62%) new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation in the intention-to-screen group versus 139 (1.53%) in the usual care group were found (adjusted odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.35)). Of 9218 eligible patients in the intention-to-screen group, 4106 (44.5%) participated in the screening protocol. In these patients, 12 lead ECG detected newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in 26 patients (0.63%). In the 266 patients who continued with Holter monitoring, four more diagnoses of atrial fibrillation were found. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients, aged 65 and over, did not increase the detection rate of atrial fibrillation, which implies that opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation is not useful in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register No NL4776 (old NTR4914).

[Elderly patients and atrial fibrillation: age alone should not be a contra-indication for anticoagulant treatment]. / Ouderen en boezemfibrilleren.

A significant proportion of elderly patients are not properly treated with anticoagulants. Here we describe the pros and cons of anticoagulant treatment in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation, illustrated by two cases. We discuss the sometimes difficult treatment decisions to be made in frail elderly patients, especially after they have suffered bleeding complications. Aspirin is now considered obsolete in the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the elderly.

Detecting and Diagnosing Atrial Fibrillation (D2AF): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a common cause of stroke and other morbidity. Adequate treatment with anticoagulants reduces the risk of stroke by 60 %. Early detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation could prevent strokes. Atrial fibrillation is often asymptomatic and/or paroxysmal. Case-finding with pulse palpation is an effective screening method, but new methods for detecting atrial fibrillation have been developed. To detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ambulatory rhythm recording is needed. This study aims to determine the yield of case-finding for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients. In addition, it will determine the diagnostic accuracy of three different case-finding methods. METHODS/DESIGN: In a multicenter cluster randomised controlled trial, we compare an enhanced protocol for case-finding of atrial fibrillation with usual care. We recruit 96 practices. We include primary care patients aged 65 years or older not diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. Within each practice, a cluster of 200 patients is randomly selected and marked. Practices are evenly randomised to intervention or control group. The allocation is not blinded. When a marked patient visits an intervention practice, the case-finding protocol starts, consisting of: pulse palpation, sphygmomanometer with automated atrial fibrillation detection and handheld single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). All patients with at least 1 positive test and a random sample of patients with negative tests receive a 12-lead ECG. Patients without atrial fibrillation on the 12-lead ECG, undergo additional continuous Holter and use the handheld single-lead ECG at home for 2 weeks. Control practices provide care as usual. The study runs for 1 year in each cluster. The primary outcomes are the difference in detection rate of new AF between intervention and control practices and the accuracy of three index tests to diagnose AF. We are currently recruiting practices. The 'Detecting and Diagnosing Atrial Fibrillation' (D2AF) study will determine the yield of an intensive case-finding strategy and the diagnostic accuracy of three index tests to diagnose atrial fibrillation in a primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4914 , registered on the 25 of November 2014.

[Mesalazine and sulphasalazine for Crohn's disease: few indications, severe adverse reactions]. / Aminosalicylaten bij de ziekte van Crohn: geringe indicatie, ernstige bijwerkingen.

We report 3 cases of the occurrence of adverse events in patients with Crohn's disease who were given aminosalicylic acids. The first case involved a 43-year-old woman who developed interstitial pneumonitis requiring intubation after switching from mesalazine to sulphasalazine. Thereafter, mesalazine was used without complications. When sulphasalazine was reintroduced, the symptoms recurred. A second patient was a 56-year-old man who experienced worsening of abdominal symptoms after commencing mesalazine for an exacerbation of Crohn's disease; these symptoms improved following discontinuation of mesalazine. A third patient, a 23-year-old woman, had been treated with mesalazine for Crohn's disease for 6 months when budesonide was added because of insufficient response. After 3 weeks she was hospitalized for acute pancreatitis, which resolved after both medications were discontinued. Pancreatitis due to budesonide has not been previously described, but mesalazine is known to cause pancreatitis even after uncomplicated long-term use. Although effective in ulcerative colitis, aminosalicylic acid is not an effective treatment for Crohn's disease in general. Although adverse effects are rare, physicians should be aware of them and avoid unnecessary use.