Abstract
Aims
Overall, 40% of patients with atrial fibrillation are asymptomatic. The usefulness and cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening programmes are debated. We evaluated whether an atrial fibrillation screening programme with a handheld electrocardiogram (ECG) machine in a population-wide cohort has a high screening yield and is cost-effective.
Methods
We used a Markov-model based modelling analysis on 1000 hypothetical individuals who matched the Belgian Heart Rhythm Week screening programme. Subgroup analyses of subjects ≥65 and ≥75 years old were performed. Screening was performed with one-lead ECG handheld machine Omron® HeartScan HCG-801.
Results
In both overall population and subgroups, the use of the screening procedure diagnosed a consistently higher number of diagnosed atrial fibrillation than not screening. In the base-case scenario, the screening procedure resulted in 106.6 more atrial fibrillation patient-years, resulting in three fewer strokes, 10 more life years and five more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The number needed-to-screen (NNS) to avoid one stroke was 361. In subjects ≥65 years old, we found 80.8 more atrial fibrillation patient-years, resulting in three fewer strokes, four more life-years and five more QALYs. The NNS to avoid one stroke was 354. Similar results were obtained in subjects ≥75 years old, with a NNS to avoid one stroke of 371. In the overall population, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for any gained QALY showed that the screening procedure was cost-effective in all groups.
Conclusions
In a population-wide screening cohort, the use of a handheld ECG machine to identify subjects with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was cost-effective in the general population, as well as in subjects ≥65 and subjects ≥75 years old.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
