No 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.

The results of the study indicated that in terms of a screening programme for atrial fibrillation in patients 65 and over, the only strategy that improved on routine practice was opportunistic screening, model-based analyses indicated that there was a probability of approximately 60% of annual opportunistic screening being cost effective. It is suggested that the following topics are worthy of further investigation: the effect of the implementation of a screening programme for AF on the uptake and maintenance of anticoagulation in patients aged 65 years and over; an evaluation of the role of CDSS in the diagnosis of cardiac arrythmias; the best method for routinely detecting paroxysmal AF; ways of improving healthcare professionals' performance in ECG interpretation; development of a robust economic model to incorporate data on new therapeutic agents for use as thromboprophylactic agents for patients with AF, and an evaluation of the relative risk of stroke for patients with incident as opposed to prevalent AF.

Patients with heart failure have statistically significant impairment of all aspects of quality of life, not simply physical functioning. The physical (role and functioning) health burden was significantly greater than that suffered in other serious common chronic disorders, whether cardiac or other systems. Optimising treatment to improve NYHA class appears to improve perceptions of quality of life for patients with heart failure. Given the dramatic decline in quality of life with heart failure, this end-point should be a much more important target for healthcare interventions, especially treatments such as ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers that are shown to improve quality of life.

The ECHOES mortality data confirm the poor prognosis of patients suffering prevalent HF across the community with a mortality risk estimate of 9% per year. Borderline systolic dysfunction (EF 40-50%) on echocardiography carries a poor prognosis.