Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Aug 25;335(7616):383.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39280.660567.55. Epub 2007 Aug 2.

Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial

David A Fitzmaurice  1 , F D Richard Hobbs, Sue Jowett, Jonathon Mant, Ellen T Murray, Roger Holder, J P Raftery, S Bryan, Michael Davies, Gregory Y H Lip, T F Allan
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial

David A Fitzmaurice et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening.

Design: Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm.

Setting: 50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices.

Participants: 14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices.

Interventions: Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices.

Main outcome measure: Newly identified atrial fibrillation.

Results: The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, -0.5% to 0.5%).

Conclusion: Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732 [controlled-trials.com].

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Distribution of practices and participants through stages of study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham study. Stroke 1991;22:983-8. - PubMed
    1. Majeed A, Moser K, Carroll K. Trends in prevalence of atrial fibrillation in general practice in England and Wales, 1994-1998: analysis of data from the general practice research database. Heart 2001;86:284-8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Risk factors for stroke and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation; analysis of pooled data from five randomised controlled trials. Arch Int Med 1994;154:1449-57. - PubMed
    1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. The principles and practice of screening for disease WHO Public Health papers. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968:34.
    1. Sudlow M, Rodgers H, Kenny RA, Thomson R. Identification of patients with atrial fibrillation in general practice: a study of screening methods. BMJ 1998;317:327-8. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data