ABSTRACT
Following publication of the original article [1], the authors opted to remove the authors full name from.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) are important given the serious health consequences. AF may be silent or paroxysmal and remain undetected. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) have appropriate equipment and optimally utilise it to detect AF. This case vignette study aimed to describe current practice and to explore possible improvements to optimise AF detection. METHODS: Between June and July 2017, we performed an online case vignette study among Dutch GPs. We aimed at obtaining at least 75 responses to the questionnaire. We collected demographics and asked GPs' opinion on their knowledge and experience in diagnosing AF. GPs could indicate which diagnostic tools they have for AF. In six case vignettes with varying symptom frequency and physical signs, they could make diagnostic choices. The last questions covered screening and actions after diagnosing AF. We compared the answers to the Dutch guideline for GPs on AF. RESULTS: Seventy-six GPs completed the questionnaire. Seventy-four GPs (97%) thought they have enough knowledge and 72 (95%) enough experience to diagnose AF. Seventy-four GPs (97%) could order or perform ECGs without the interference of a cardiologist. In case of frequent symptoms of AF, 36-40% would choose short-term (i.e. 24-48 h) and 11-19% long-term (i.e. 7 days, 14 days or 1 month) monitoring. In case of non-frequent symptoms, 29-31% would choose short-term and 21-30% long-term monitoring. If opportunistic screening in primary care proves to be effective, 83% (58/70) will support it. CONCLUSIONS: Responding GPs report to have adequate equipment, knowledge, and experience to detect and diagnose AF. Almost all participants can order ECGs. Reported monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by the guideline. AF detection could improve by increasing the monitoring duration.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , General Practitioners/psychology , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Adult , Aged , Electrocardiography , Electrocardiography, Ambulatory , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important given the risk of complications, such as stroke and heart failure, and the need for preventive measures. Detection is complicated because AF can be silent or paroxysmal. Describing current practice may give clues to improve AF detection. The aim of this study was to describe how cardiologists currently detect AF. METHODS: Between December 2014 and May 2015, we sent Dutch cardiologists an online questionnaire. Firstly, we asked which tools for detection of AF their department has. Secondly, we presented six case vignettes related to AF, in which they could choose a diagnostic tool. Thirdly, we compared the results with current guidelines. RESULTS: We approached 90 cardiology departments and 48 (53%) completed the questionnaire. In asymptomatic patients with risk factors according to CHA2DS2-VASc, 40% of the cardiologists would screen for AF. In patients with signs or symptoms of AF, all but one cardiologist would start a diagnostic process. In both vignettes describing patients with non-frequent symptoms, 46% and 54% of the responders would use short-term (i. e. 24- or 48-hour) electrocardiographic monitoring, 48% and 27% would use long-term (i. e. 7 day, 14 day or one month) monitoring. In both cases describing patients with frequent symptoms, 85% of the responders would use short-term and 15% and 4% long-term monitoring. CONCLUSION: Dutch cardiologists have access to a wide variety of ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring tools. Nearly half of the cardiologists would perform opportunistic screening. In cases with non-frequent symptoms, monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by NICE.