Cost-effectiveness and screening performance of ECG handheld machine in a population screening programme: The Belgian Heart Rhythm Week screening programme
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, ISSN: 2047-4881, Vol: 26, Issue: 9, Page: 964-972
2019
- 23Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations23
- Citation Indexes23
- 23
- CrossRef6
- Captures42
- Readers42
- 42
Article Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85063971354&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487319839184; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30935219; https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/26/9/964-972/5925996; https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487319839184; https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/26/9/964/5925996
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know