Incident atrial fibrillation and adverse clinical outcomes during extended follow-up of participants recruited to the remote heart rhythm sampling using the AliveCor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation: the REHEARSE-AF study.

Elizabeth A Ellins, Kathie Wareham, Daniel E Harris, Matthew Hanney, Ashley Akbari, Mark Gilmore, James P Barry, Ceri J Phillips, Michael B Gravenor, Julian P Halcox
{"title":"Incident atrial fibrillation and adverse clinical outcomes during extended follow-up of participants recruited to the remote heart rhythm sampling using the AliveCor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation: the REHEARSE-AF study.","authors":"Elizabeth A Ellins,&nbsp;Kathie Wareham,&nbsp;Daniel E Harris,&nbsp;Matthew Hanney,&nbsp;Ashley Akbari,&nbsp;Mark Gilmore,&nbsp;James P Barry,&nbsp;Ceri J Phillips,&nbsp;Michael B Gravenor,&nbsp;Julian P Halcox","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oead047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for stroke, which is commonly asymptomatic, particularly in older patients, and often undetected until cardiovascular events occur. Development of novel technology has helped to improve detection of AF. However, the longer-term benefit of systematic electrocardiogram (ECG) screening on cardiovascular outcomes is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In the original REHEARSE-AF study, patients were randomized to twice-weekly portable electrocardiogram (iECG) assessment or routine care. After discontinuing the trial portable iECG assessment, electronic health record data sources provided longer-term follow-up analysis. Cox regression was used to provide unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) [95% confidence intervals (CI)] for clinical diagnosis, events, and anticoagulant prescriptions during the follow-up period. Over the median 4.2-year follow-up, although a greater number of patients were diagnosed with AF in the original iECG group (43 vs. 31), this was not significant (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.86-2.19). No differences were seen in the number of strokes/systemic embolisms or deaths between the two groups (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54; HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66-1.73). Findings were similar when restricted to those with CHADS-VASc ≥ 4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A 1-year period of home-based, twice-weekly screening for AF increased diagnoses of AF for the screening period but did not lead to increased diagnoses of AF or a reduction in cardiovascular-related events or all-cause death over a median of 4.2 years, even in those at highest risk of AF. These results suggest that benefits of regular ECG screening over a 1-year period are not maintained after cessation of the screening protocol.</p>","PeriodicalId":11973,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal Open","volume":"3 3","pages":"oead047"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/34/oead047.PMC10187779.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oead047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for stroke, which is commonly asymptomatic, particularly in older patients, and often undetected until cardiovascular events occur. Development of novel technology has helped to improve detection of AF. However, the longer-term benefit of systematic electrocardiogram (ECG) screening on cardiovascular outcomes is unclear.

Methods and results: In the original REHEARSE-AF study, patients were randomized to twice-weekly portable electrocardiogram (iECG) assessment or routine care. After discontinuing the trial portable iECG assessment, electronic health record data sources provided longer-term follow-up analysis. Cox regression was used to provide unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) [95% confidence intervals (CI)] for clinical diagnosis, events, and anticoagulant prescriptions during the follow-up period. Over the median 4.2-year follow-up, although a greater number of patients were diagnosed with AF in the original iECG group (43 vs. 31), this was not significant (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.86-2.19). No differences were seen in the number of strokes/systemic embolisms or deaths between the two groups (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54; HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66-1.73). Findings were similar when restricted to those with CHADS-VASc ≥ 4.

Conclusion: A 1-year period of home-based, twice-weekly screening for AF increased diagnoses of AF for the screening period but did not lead to increased diagnoses of AF or a reduction in cardiovascular-related events or all-cause death over a median of 4.2 years, even in those at highest risk of AF. These results suggest that benefits of regular ECG screening over a 1-year period are not maintained after cessation of the screening protocol.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在使用AliveCor心脏监测器进行远程心律采样以筛查房颤的参与者的延长随访期间,房颤事件和不良临床结果:预演-房颤研究。
目的:房颤(AF)是卒中的重要危险因素,通常无症状,特别是在老年患者中,并且通常在发生心血管事件之前未被发现。新技术的发展有助于提高房颤的检测。然而,系统心电图(ECG)筛查对心血管结局的长期益处尚不清楚。方法和结果:在最初的排演-房颤研究中,患者被随机分配到每周两次的便携式心电图(iECG)评估或常规护理。在停止试验便携式iECG评估后,电子健康记录数据源提供了长期随访分析。采用Cox回归提供随访期间临床诊断、事件和抗凝处方的未经调整和调整的风险比(HR)[95%置信区间(CI)]。在中位4.2年的随访中,尽管在原始iECG组中有更多的患者被诊断为房颤(43比31),但这并不显著(HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.86-2.19)。两组在卒中/全身性栓塞或死亡的数量上没有差异(HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54;Hr 1.07, 95% ci 0.66-1.73)。当仅限于CHADS-VASc≥4的患者时,结果相似。结论:为期1年的以家庭为基础、每周两次的房颤筛查增加了房颤的诊断率,但没有导致房颤诊断率增加,也没有减少心血管相关事件或全因死亡(中位数为4.2年),即使在房颤风险最高的人群中也是如此。这些结果表明,在停止筛查方案后,定期心电图筛查的益处在1年期间无法维持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信