• Rui Duarte, Angela Stainthorpe, Janette Greenhalgh, Marty Richardson, Sarah Nevitt, James Mahon, Eleanor Kotas, Angela Boland, Howard Thom, Tom Marshall, Mark Hall, and Yemisi Takwoingi.
• Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG), Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
• Health Technol Assess. 2020 Jan 1; 24 (3): 1-164.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can be used to detect AF at a single time point in people who present with relevant signs or symptoms.ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of using single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people presenting to primary care with relevant signs or symptoms, and who have an irregular pulse compared with using manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care.Data SourcesMEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database.MethodsThe systematic review methods followed published guidance. Two reviewers screened the search results (database inception to April 2018), extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. An economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices.ResultsNo studies were identified that evaluated the use of lead-I ECG devices for patients with signs or symptoms of AF. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact results presented are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.2% to 97.4%] and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI 90.4% to 98.8%). One study reported limited clinical outcome data. Acceptability of lead-I ECG devices was reported in four studies, with generally positive views. The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generated ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile (AliveCor Ltd, Mountain View, CA, USA) is the most cost-effective option in a full incremental analysis.LimitationsNo published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the population of interest are available.ConclusionsSingle time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appear to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care, given the assumptions used in the base-case model.Future WorkStudies assessing how the use of lead-I ECG devices in this population affects the number of people diagnosed with AF when compared with current practice would be useful.Study RegistrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018090375.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

22 keywords...

hide…