Optimal opportunistic screening of atrial fibrillation using pulse palpation in cardiology outpatient clinics: Who and how.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) remain a prevalent undiagnosed condition frequently encountered in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to find the parameters that optimize the diagnostic accuracy of pulse palpation to detect AF. We also aimed to create a simple algorithm for selecting which individuals would benefit from pulse palpation and, if positive, receive an ECG to detect AF. METHODS: Nurses from four Cardiology outpatient clinics palpated 7,844 pulses according to a randomized list of arterial territories and durations of measure and immediately followed by a 12-lead ECG, which we used as the reference standard. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the palpation parameters. We also assessed whether diagnostic accuracy depended on the nurse's experience or on a list of clinical factors of the patients. With this information, we estimated the positive predictive values and false omission rates according to very few clinical factors readily available in primary care (age, sex, and diagnosis of heart failure) and used them to create the algorithm. RESULTS: The parameters associated with the highest diagnostic accuracy were palpation of the radial artery and classifying as irregular those palpations in which the nurse was uncertain about pulse regularity or unable to palpate pulse (sensitivity = 79%; specificity = 86%). Specificity decreased with age. Neither the nurse's experience nor any investigated clinical factor influenced diagnostic accuracy. We provide the algorithm to select the ≥40 years old individuals that would benefit from a pulse palpation screening: a) do nothing in <60 years old individuals without heart failure; b) do ECG in ≥70 years old individuals with heart failure; c) do radial pulse palpation in the remaining individuals and do ECG if the pulse is irregular or you are uncertain about its regularity or unable to palpate it. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic screening for AF using optimal pulse palpation in candidate individuals according to a simple algorithm may have high effectiveness in detecting AF in primary care.

Coste-efectividad del desfibrilador automático implantable para la prevención primaria de la muerte súbita cardiaca / Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

Introducción y objetivos: El desfibrilador automático implantable (DAI) es una alternativa coste-efectiva para la prevención secundaria de la muerte súbita cardiaca, pero sigue habiendo dudas sobre su eficiencia en prevención primaria, sobre todo en pacientes con cardiopatía no isquémica.Métodos: Análisis de coste-utilidad del DAI más tratamiento médico convencional frente a tratamiento médico convencional para la prevención primaria de arritmias cardiacas desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Se simuló el curso de la enfermedad mediante modelos de Markov en pacientes con y sin cardiopatía isquémica. Los parámetros del modelo se basaron en los resultados obtenidos mediante metanálisis de los ensayos clínicos publicados entre 1996 y 2018 en los que se comparaba el DAI con el tratamiento médico convencional, los resultados de seguridad del ensayo DANISH y el análisis de la práctica clínica habitual en un hospital terciario.Resultados: Se estimó un beneficio del DAI sobre la muerte por cualquier causa con HR = 0,70 (IC95%, 0,58-0,85) en cardiopatía isquémica y HR = 0,79 (IC95%, 0,66-0,96) en no isquémica. La razón de coste-efectividad incremental estimada mediante análisis probabilístico fue de 19.171 euros/año de vida ajustado por calidad (AVAC) en pacientes con cardiopatía isquémica, 31.084 euros/AVAC en pacientes con miocardiopatía dilatada no isquémica y 23.230 euros/AVAC en los menores de 68 años.Conclusiones: La eficiencia del DAI monocameral ha mejorado en la última década y este resulta coste-efectivo para los pacientes con disfunción ventricular izquierda de origen isquémico o no isquémico menores de 68 años considerando una disposición a pagar 25.000 euros/AVAC. En pacientes no isquémicos mayores, la razón de coste-efectividad incremental estimada se sitúa alrededor de los 30.000 euros/AVAC (AU)

Introduction and objective: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are a cost-effective alternative for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, but their efficiency in primary prevention, especially among patients with nonischemic heart disease, is still uncertain.Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of ICD plus conventional medical treatment (CMT) vs CMT for primary prevention of cardiac arrhythmias from the perspective of the national health service. We simulated the course of the disease by using Markov models in patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease. The parameters of the model were based on the results obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials published between 1996 and 2018 comparing ICD plus CMT vs CMT, the safety results of the DANISH trial, and analysis of real-world clinical practice in a tertiary hospital.Results: We estimated that ICD reduced the likelihood of all-cause death in patients with ischemic heart disease (HR, 0.70; 95%CI, 0.58-0.85) and in those with nonischemic heart disease (HR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.66–0.96). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimated with probabilistic analysis was €19 171/quality adjusted life year (QALY) in patients with ischemic heart disease and €31 084/QALY in those with nonischemic dilated myocardiopathy overall and €23 230/QALY in patients younger than 68 years.Conclusions: The efficiency of single-lead ICD systems has improved in the last decade, and these devices are cost-effective in patients with ischemic and nonischemic left ventricular dysfunction younger than 68 years, assuming willingness to pay as €25 000/QALY. For older nonischemic patients, the ICER was around €30 000/QALY (AU)

Long-Term Variation in Kidney Function and Its Impact After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Kidney disease (KD) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with major cardiovascular events (MACE). We sought to compare the long-term variation in KD in patients with AMI versus controls and its value as a risk factor for MACE in patients with AMI. A cohort of 300 outpatients with AMI, recruited between 2014 and 2016 in Barcelona, Spain, were compared with a control cohort matched 1:1 based on age and several risk factors for developing KD. Annual estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using MDRD-4 formula and albuminuria were collected and patients were followed up for the occurrence of MACE (death, heart failure hospitalization, AMI, or stroke). After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the decline in eGFR was more pronounced in patients with AMI (-1.15 ml/min/1.73 m2/ per year in patients with AMI vs -0.81 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year in controls, p = 0.018 between the ß coefficients of both regression slopes). In patients with AMI, those with the greatest eGFR decline during follow-up had more MACE (hazard ratio [HR] for first vs fourth quartiles = 3.33, p <0.001). In multivariate analysis, after excluding patients with baseline KD, a newly diagnosed eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 during follow-up was associated with MACE (HR = 3.21, p <0.001), as well as new onset albuminuria >30 mg/g (HR = 6.93, p <0.001) and the combination of both (HR 5.63, p <0.001). In conclusion, the decline in eGFR after AMI is more pronounced than in the general population. A longitudinal drop in eGFR and newly diagnosed albuminuria during follow-up are associated with MACE and can be useful tools to reclassify the risk profile after AMI.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are a cost-effective alternative for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, but their efficiency in primary prevention, especially among patients with nonischemic heart disease, is still uncertain. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of ICD plus conventional medical treatment (CMT) vs CMT for primary prevention of cardiac arrhythmias from the perspective of the national health service. We simulated the course of the disease by using Markov models in patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease. The parameters of the model were based on the results obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials published between 1996 and 2018 comparing ICD plus CMT vs CMT, the safety results of the DANISH trial, and analysis of real-world clinical practice in a tertiary hospital. RESULTS: We estimated that ICD reduced the likelihood of all-cause death in patients with ischemic heart disease (HR, 0.70; 95%CI, 0.58-0.85) and in those with nonischemic heart disease (HR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.66-0.96). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimated with probabilistic analysis was €19 171/quality adjusted life year (QALY) in patients with ischemic heart disease and €31 084/QALY in those with nonischemic dilated myocardiopathy overall and €23 230/QALY in patients younger than 68 years. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of single-lead ICD systems has improved in the last decade, and these devices are cost-effective in patients with ischemic and nonischemic left ventricular dysfunction younger than 68 years, assuming willingness to pay as €25 000/QALY. For older nonischemic patients, the ICER was around €30 000/QALY.