Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Atrial Fibrillation logoLink to Journal of Atrial Fibrillation
. 2014 Oct 31;7(3):1138. doi: 10.4022/jafib.1138

Silent Atrial Fibrillation: A Critical Review

Alessandro Barbarossa 1, Federico Guerra 1, Alessandro Capucci 1
PMCID: PMC4956292  PMID: 27957123

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the most common cardiac arrhythmia, and is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events. Silent AF is an asymptomatic form of AF incidentally diagnosed during a routine test or manifesting as an arrhythmia-related complication. Although recent trials have clearly demonstrated that patients with sub-clinical AF are at increased risk of stroke, the real incidence of this form of AF is still unknown. In fact, studies about silent AF had been performed only in specific subgroups of patients such as those with implantable cardiac devices, with recent cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and recently undergoing AF ablation. Continuous ECG-monitoring in patients without implantable cardiac devices may improve silent AF detection but its cost-effectiveness actually is not well established in all kind of patients. Moreover, recent data have revealed that only a small number of these patients may have sub-clinical AF within the month prior to their stroke suggesting a lack of temporal relationship between the stroke and the AF episode.

This paper will review available data on different diagnostic tools for silent AF detection with a focus on their cost-effectiveness, analyzing the direct correlation between the arrhythmia and embolic events, and discussing areas of uncertainty where further research is required.

Keywords: Atrial Fibrillation, Silent Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke, TIA, Thromboembolism, Holter-Monitoring, Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices, Stroke, Transient Ischemic Attack, Detection Algorithms, Loop-Recorder

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism.[1]

While many patients with AF may complain of palpitations, dyspnea and fatigue, some patients report no symptoms. Silent AF (SAF) is an asymptomatic form of AF incidentally diagnosed during routine examination or manifesting as an AF-related complication, such as ischemic stroke or tachycardiomyopathy.[2] The real incidence of SAF in general population is still unknown, and this can be considered a major healthcare problem since the SAF paroxysms have been correlated with the same increased risk of ischemic stroke as symptomatic episodes.[3-5]

Recently, implementation of new technologies such as long-term ECG-Holter monitoring or new detection algorithms in implantable cardiac devices allowed an improvement in the recording rates of SAF.[5,6]

The aim of the present paper is to review clinical and diagnostic tools that can be helpful in detecting SAF, and consequent strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality.

Silent AF: Difference Between Clinical Trials And “Real World” Population

One of the main issues regarding SAF is that the vast majority of patients enrolled in the longer clinical trials dealing with AF detection and burden assessment had very peculiar characteristics, which are seldom represented in the real world population. The prevalence of arterial hypertension varies from 50[7] to 87%[8] in some of the most recent clinical trials on AF, while its true prevalence is around 65%, according to recent registry data.[9] Moreover, some cardiac comorbidities such as coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure (HF), while not uncommon in every day clinical practice, are usually excluded or under-represented in major clinical trials.[10-12]

In more recent real world population prevalence of SAF was around 1.4% in all patients ≥ 65 years screened for AF, and reach 13.3% in patients with a known diagnosis of AF.[13,14] The first real world study aimed to detect the real risk profile of SAF was the BELGRADE-AF study,[14] which showed significant baseline differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic AF, as well as significant increase in progression to permanent AF and ischemic stroke in SAF. The authors concluded that asymptomatic presentation of incident AF could require more attentions in every day clinical practice.

However, most of the recent clinical trials on SAF were not aimed to the whole picture but rather focused the attention on just three main subgroups: patients with an implantable devices,[3-5,15] patients with cryptogenic acute stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA),[6] and patients undergoing AF ablation.[16]

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED)

Implantable devices allow a continuous ECG recording of cardiac activity, and therefore are privileged in this context. An overview of the major clinical CIED trials dealing with SAF is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. summary of main studies in patients with CIEDs.

Year N. of patients Type of device Type of patients
Gillis et al.[17] 2002 231 PMK Standard indication to pacing
MOST trial.[15] 2003 312 PMK Patients with SND
Israel. et al.[18] 2004 678 PMK Patients with SND or atri-ventricular block
Capucci et al.[3] 2005 725 PMK Patients suffering from bradycardia and a history of symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT)
Orlov et al.[19] 2007 427 PMK Patients with stardard indication for pacing
Orlov et al.TRENDS [5] 2009 2486 PMK or ICD Patients with indication for Pacing, ICD, or CRT with or whitout AF history
ASSERT[4] 2012 2580 PMK or ICD Sinus node or AV node disease, not previous history of AF
Shanmugam et al.[45] 2012 560 CRT Patients with CRT and home-monitoring system
Open in a new tab

Glotzer et al.[15] found a prevalence of 51% of Atrial High Rate Episodes (AHRE) in a cohort of 312 patients implanted for sinus node disease (SND). Similar incidence rates were shown by Gillis et al. in another study, with similar population.[17]

Regarding patients with prior history of AF Israel et al.[18] showed in a group of 110 implanted patients (for SND or atrio-ventricular block) an high recurrence of AF despite optimal medical therapy; moreover a significant proportion of these patients were asymptomatic during the 3.5 year follow-up. Similar data were found by Capucci et al.[3] in a group of patients implanted with pacemaker for bradycardia with previous history of ATs (74% recurrence of AF episodes lasting at least more than 5 min during a median follow-up of 22 months).

In 2007, Orlov et al.[19] compared 427 patients with an implantable device divided according to the presence or absence of an history of atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) such as AF or atrial flutter (AFL). They found a high occurrence of AHRE in both groups, slightly higher in those with previous history of AT (88.5% vs. 53.8% at 24 months post implant; p < 0.001).

Finally, in the ASSERT trial,[4] Healey and colleagues found an incidence of at least one AHRE in 34.7% of patients without any previous history of AF during 2.5 year of follow-up.

Algorithms for discrimination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) were originally designed in order to avoid inappropriate shocks in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In single-chamber devices, the detection is made using four different parameters: RR onset, RR stability, ventricular electrocardiogram morphology (VEGM) and sustained rate duration. The combination of these features ensures appropriate therapy of sustained VT at the expense of decreased specificity for SVT rejection. On the other hand, dual-chamber devices offer the possibility of sensing directly the right atrial chamber. While this feature does not seem to add a lot in terms of VT discrimination specificity when compared with single lead devices,[20] it surely represents a major breakthrough in AF detection capability. These advanced algorithms are the main reason whereby dual-chamber pacemakers have a much higher sensitivity and specificity than 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring in AF diagnosis.[15,16,21]

Differently from pacemakers and ICDs, implantable loop recorder (ILR) devices cannot sense endocardial atrial activity therefore RR intervals variation is used as the main variable for AF diagnosis.[22]

A recent clinical study (XPECT trial) showed that a subcutaneous device provided with AF detection algorithm had a good accuracy (98.5%) in AF burden quantification, and high sensitivity (96.4%) in AF identification, independently of symptoms.[23]

Cryptogenic Stroke

Cryptogenic stroke is defined as a stroke caused by unknown, undetermined or unclear cause, and accounts for 25-30% of all ischemic strokes.[24] SAF is often suspected to be the underlying cause of stroke in these patients[25] and screening for SAF episodes is mandatory for therapeutic reasons.

A single 12-lead ECG has very poor sensitivity for paroxysmal AF detection. A 24-hour ECG recording (Holter monitoring) is often used and allows the detection of previously unrecognized AF in only 2% of stroke patients.[26-28]

Moreover, the use of 7-day ambulatory ECG monitoring with the new event-loop recording system (ELR) demonstrated a further improvement of sensitivity in recognizing SAF in patients with stroke or TIA (Table 2).

Table 2. summary of studies with different cardiac monitoring systems in patients with cryptogenic stroke or TIA.

Year N. of patients Method Type of patients
Koudstaal et al.[27] 1986 100 24 hour Holter ECG Patients with TIA
Kessler et al.[26] 1995 100 ECG Patients with stroke
Jabadoun et al.[6] 2004 149 Ambulatory 7-day ECG monitoring Patients with acute stroke or TIA and negative standard ECG-Holter
Douen et al.[28] 2008 144 Inpatient serial ECG vs 24-hour Holter ECG Patients with stroke
Rizos et al.[31] 2012 832 Continous ECG monitoring vs 24-hour ECG Holter Patients with stroke
Cotter et al.[30] 2013 51 ILR Patients with cryptogenic stroke
Ritter et al.[29] 2013 60 ILR vs 7-day ECG Patients with cryptogenic stroke
CRYSTAL AF[32] 2014 441 ILR Patients with cryptogenic stroke or TIA
EMBRACE[33] 2014 572 24-hour ECG Holter vs 30 day trigger ELR Patients with cryptogenic strike or TIA in previous 6 months
Open in a new tab

Jabaudon et al.[6] enrolled 149 patients with acute stoke or TIA, evaluated with standard 12-lead ECG and, if not diagnostic, a 24-hour Holter monitoring. In case the Holter was not diagnostic too they underwent a 7-day ambulatory ECG monitoring. The 7-day monitoring was able to detect SAF in an additional 5.7% of patients despite standard ECG and 24-hour Holter found no evidence of AF (5/88 patients).

A further improvement in SAF diagnosis after an acute cerebral ischemic episode derived from ILRs. In fact, those devices allow a much longer ECG monitoring with a consequent big increase in sensitivity. Ritter et al.[29] showed that ILR was superior to 7-days ECG monitoring in SAF detection (17% vs. 1.7%; p=0.008) in patients with cryptogenic stroke.

Even Cotter and colleagues[30] found also in a cohort of 51 patients with cryptogenic stroke that AF was detected by ILR in 25.5% of cases. Continuous ECG monitoring (CEM) with telemetry in stroke unit plays also a central role in diagnosis of AF paroxysms that may be asymptomatic.[31]

Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation (CRYSTAL-AF) study[32] showed that continuous ECG monitoring with ILRs is superior to conventional follow-up methods in detection AF after a cryptogenic stroke or TIA. Moreover, most of AF episodes detected in the CRYSTAL-AF were asymptomatic (74% in ILR group at 6 months follow-up).

Unfortunately, this study was underpowered to find a stroke or TIA recurrence reduction.

Finally, the recent EMBRACE trial[33] demonstrated that non invasive ambulatory 30-day ECG monitoring improved the detection of SAF by 5-fold and nearly doubled the rate of anticoagulant therapy where compared to standard ECG-monitoring. The detection rates of AF were 16.1% vs 3.2%, and 9.9% vs 2.5% when a cut-off of ≥30 seconds and ≥2.5 minutes was used respectively.

AF Ablation

ECG monitoring plays an important role in evaluating the asymptomatic recurrences after AF ablation. This therapeutic strategy may in fact favor a shift from symptomatic to asymptomatic form of AF,[34] and it is well known that symptoms evaluation alone is not useful in monitoring AF ablation success.[35]

In the large majority of trials the monitoring strategy was based on 24–72 hours of Holter monitoring, which unfortunately does not provide accurate heart rhythm status, particularly after AF ablation (Table 3). Hanke et al.[21] enrolled 45 patients with previous AF history, who underwent surgical AF ablation and subsequent implant of ILR. Patient follow-up was scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively and then every 2 years with a clinical visit and 24-hour ECG Holter. While 24-hour Holter readings indicated sinus rhythm in 53 instances, a simultaneous telemetry allowed AF recurrence recording in 19 of these 53, suggesting an overall 34% 24-hour Holter failure (p<0.0001) in detecting SAF. This reflects a low 24-hour Holter sensitivity (0.60) and a low negative predictive value (0.64).

Table 3. studies in follow-up after AF ablation.

Year N. of patients Method
Hanke et al.[21] 2009 45 24 hour Holter ECG vs ILR
Pokushalov et al.[33] 2011 286 ILR
Joshi et al.[38] 2009 72 ELR
Manganiello et al.[37] 2014 113 12-lead ECG vs ILR
Open in a new tab

Pokushalov et al.[36] also demonstrated that a continuous monitoring with ILRs after AF catheter ablation is useful in early detection of AF recurrence and may guide to perform an early second ablation. Similar results were recently found by Mangianello et al.[37] Unfortunately ILR are invasive, have limited memory storage and have a lifespan of only 3 years. External loop recorders (ELRs) with AF detection algorithms may be another option in SAF recurrence detection.[38]

Unfortunately, most of the patients commonly seen in clinical practice do not belong to one of these three aforementioned categories. Therefore, AF may long remain undiagnosed[39] as many patients with SAF have no reason to perform an ECG, or present a normal sinus rhythm during ECG routine control. For example we have no available data for prevalence of SAF in otherwise-healthy, hypertensive patients, which is the most frequent risk factor in AF population.[9] Similarly, some particular subtypes of AF, such as late postoperative AF, could benefit from the increased detection rates provided by ILRs and ELRs in order to avoid short- and long-term complications associated with this disease.[40]

Is SAF Monitoring Cost-Effective? And When?

We have seen how continuous ECG monitoring may improve SAF recurrences detection.

However, is it cost-effective? And, even if it is, is that true for every kind of patient?

Unfortunately, in literature there are not enough data in order to give a clear answer.

In patients with CIED, the possibility of continuous monitoring is surely an added benefit. In these patients, utilization of remote monitoring (RM) may provide a risk reduction for stroke, compare with standard ambulatory monitoring, because it allows an early detection of AF paroxysms while reducing follow-up costs.[41]

A meta-analysis from Kamel et al. showed that one-week continuous monitoring is cost-effective in diagnosis of SAF in order to prevent ischemic events recurrence in patients with ischemic stroke.[42] Similar results were found by Felix and colleagues with 7-day ECG monitoring, in a similar population.[43]

The real challenge is to extend the possibility of continuous monitoring to other sub-groups of patients with AF risk factors or predisposition. For all these reasons, more studies and new evidence are needed.

On the other hand, one time community screening using single-lead ECG recording with handheld devices showed some promising results in the recent SEARCH-AF study.[44] In this study ten pharmacies across Sidney where trained in order to screen for AF using specific software on a handheld devices. While the proportion of newly diagnosed AF was in line to what already known (1.3%) the authors found that this type of screening brought an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 3142€ per QALY gained and 15993€ per stroke avoided. This findings are especially important when compared with the cost of a hospitalization for stroke which was assumed by the authors to account for 34036€ in a ten-year time horizon. Moreover, the algorithm using by the software to detect AF had a very good sensitivity (98.5%) and specificity (91.4%).

AF Burden, Temporal Association And Risk Of Systemic Thromboembolism

In the last few years, many studies involving patients with implantable devices evaluated the correlation between AF burden and the risk of thromboembolic events.

The MOST trial in 2003[15] showed that the presence of pacemaker-detected AHREs lasting at least 5 minutes were associated with a more than doubled risk of death or stroke and 6-fold increased risk of developing AF. Despite these results, a direct cause-effect relationship between AHRE and mortality seems unlikely as the authors added that patients with AHRE also had more severe structural heart disease. Another important study from Capucci et al. conducted in 725 patients with previous history of AF and implanted with dual-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia, found that device-detected recurrence of AF lasting more than 24 hours was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of embolic events.[3] Unfortunately, in this study patients with episodes < 24 hours were in the same group as with patients with no AF burden, thus making difficult to define a clinically useful cut-off of daily AT/AF burden that raises the risk of thromboembolic events.

Glotzer et al. in the TRENDS study[5] followed-up 2486 patients with implantable cardiac rhythm device to evaluate the AT/AF burden (defined as the longest total AT/AF duration on any given day during the prior 30-day period). Those patients were divided into 3 groups: zero, low (<5.5 hours), and high burden (>5.5 hours). A major finding was that patients with a >5.5 hours daily AT/AF burden had a double risk of systemic thromboembolism. Two main limitations of this study were the unexpectedly low event rates and the absence of ECG tracings to verify AF episodes.[5]

Similarly to what previously exposed, Shangmugan and colleagues found in a cohort of HF patients that daily AF burden >3.8 hours over 24 hours was associated with a significant increase in thromboembolic event rate.[45]

Finally, the Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation and the Risk of Stroke trial (ASSERT)[4] enrolled a total of 2451 patients with a newly implanted pacemaker (for SND or atrio-ventricular blocks) and 129 patients with a newly implanted ICD. Those patients had no previous history of AF or AFL lasting more than 5 minutes, and were not in oral anticoagulation therapy.

Episodes of AT were detected at least once during a mean follow-up of 2.5 years in about one third of the patients. One major finding was that subclinical AT (lasting more than 6 minutes) were independently associated with 2.5-fold risk of ischemic stroke or systemic independently of other risk factors and on the presence of AF symptoms. A limitation was that this trial did not analyze device-detected events of 6 minutes or less, which occurred frequently and potentially important from a clinical point of view.

Although there is evidence of an association between AF burden and thromboembolic events, their temporal relationship is still poor understood. A sub-analysis from the ASSERT trial showed that only 15% of patients with an embolic event had evidence of subclinical AF (SCAF) >6 minutes in the previous month. Moreover, the majority of SCAF events occurring prior to the embolic event were far shorter than 48 hours, which is commonly believed to be the minimum duration required for thrombus formation in the left atrial appendage.[46] Shangmugan et al.[45] in their study reached a similar conclusion. In fact, mean time from last AHRE and thromboembolic event was 46.7±71.9 days. Moreover only 27.3% of patients with detected atrial burden, who suffered a thromboembolism complication, were in AT at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, one third of those who developed thrombotic events had no prior atrial arrhythmia recorded.

These data suggest that subclinical AF may be related to embolic events via indirect mechanism or could be only a risk marker.

Conclusion

Despite all the current efforts, SAF is still widely under-diagnosed in every day clinical practice. Unfortunately, prevalence of this disease is not trivial and enough data suggest that SAF could predispose to aa higher risk of thromboembolic events.

Fortunately, new and advanced diagnostic tools are now widely available and can help to detect SAF in a good proportion of patients, thus potentially improving anticoagulation therapy and quality of life. The cost-effectiveness and the heterogeneity of population at risk for SAF are still limiting contemporary detection rates of this invisible enemy.

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. Wolf P A, Abbott R D, Kannel W B. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991 Aug;22 (8):983–8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.22.8.983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Camm A John, Kirchhof Paulus, Lip Gregory Y H, Schotten Ulrich, Savelieva Irene, Ernst Sabine, Van Gelder Isabelle C, Al-Attar Nawwar, Hindricks Gerhard, Prendergast Bernard, Heidbuchel Hein, Alfieri Ottavio, Angelini Annalisa, Atar Dan, Colonna Paolo, De Caterina Raffaele, De Sutter Johan, Goette Andreas, Gorenek Bulent, Heldal Magnus, Hohloser Stefan H, Kolh Philippe, Le Heuzey Jean-Yves, Ponikowski Piotr, Rutten Frans H. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 2010 Oct;31 (19):2369–429. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Capucci Alessandro, Santini Massimo, Padeletti Luigi, Gulizia Michele, Botto GianLuca, Boriani Giuseppe, Ricci Renato, Favale Stefano, Zolezzi Francesco, Di Belardino Natale, Molon Giulio, Drago Fabrizio, Villani Giovanni Q, Mazzini Elena, Vimercati Marco, Grammatico Andrea. Monitored atrial fibrillation duration predicts arterial embolic events in patients suffering from bradycardia and atrial fibrillation implanted with antitachycardia pacemakers. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2005 Nov 15;46 (10):1913–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.07.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Healey Jeff S, Connolly Stuart J, Gold Michael R, Israel Carsten W, Van Gelder Isabelle C, Capucci Alessandro, Lau C P, Fain Eric, Yang Sean, Bailleul Christophe, Morillo Carlos A, Carlson Mark, Themeles Ellison, Kaufman Elizabeth S, Hohnloser Stefan H. Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 Jan 12;366 (2):120–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Glotzer Taya V, Daoud Emile G, Wyse D George, Singer Daniel E, Ezekowitz Michael D, Hilker Christopher, Miller Clayton, Qi Dongfeng, Ziegler Paul D. The relationship between daily atrial tachyarrhythmia burden from implantable device diagnostics and stroke risk: the TRENDS study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009 Oct;2 (5):474–80. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.109.849638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jabaudon Denis, Sztajzel Juan, Sievert Katia, Landis Theodor, Sztajzel Roman. Usefulness of ambulatory 7-day ECG monitoring for the detection of atrial fibrillation and flutter after acute stroke and transient ischemic attack. Stroke. 2004 Jul;35 (7):1647–51. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000131269.69502.d9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Epstein Andrew E, Vidaillet Humberto, Greene H Leon, Curtis Anne B, Ellenbogen Kenneth A, Simmons Todd, Mickel Mary. Frequency of symptomatic atrial fibrillation in patients enrolled in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2002 Jul;13 (7):667–71. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2002.00667.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Granger Christopher B, Alexander John H, McMurray John J V, Lopes Renato D, Hylek Elaine M, Hanna Michael, Al-Khalidi Hussein R, Ansell Jack, Atar Dan, Avezum Alvaro, Bahit M Cecilia, Diaz Rafael, Easton J Donald, Ezekowitz Justin A, Flaker Greg, Garcia David, Geraldes Margarida, Gersh Bernard J, Golitsyn Sergey, Goto Shinya, Hermosillo Antonio G, Hohnloser Stefan H, Horowitz John, Mohan Puneet, Jansky Petr, Lewis Basil S, Lopez-Sendon Jose Luis, Pais Prem, Parkhomenko Alexander, Verheugt Freek W A, Zhu Jun, Wallentin Lars. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 Sep 15;365 (11):981–92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nieuwlaat Robby, Capucci Alessandro, Camm A John, Olsson S Bertil, Andresen Dietrich, Davies D Wyn, Cobbe Stuart, Breithardt Günter, Le Heuzey Jean-Yves, Prins Martin H, Lévy Samuel, Crijns Harry J G M. Atrial fibrillation management: a prospective survey in ESC member countries: the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation. Eur. Heart J. 2005 Nov;26 (22):2422–34. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Connolly Stuart J, Ezekowitz Michael D, Yusuf Salim, Eikelboom John, Oldgren Jonas, Parekh Amit, Pogue Janice, Reilly Paul A, Themeles Ellison, Varrone Jeanne, Wang Susan, Alings Marco, Xavier Denis, Zhu Jun, Diaz Rafael, Lewis Basil S, Darius Harald, Diener Hans-Christoph, Joyner Campbell D, Wallentin Lars. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 Sep 17;361 (12):1139–51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Maund E, McKenna C, Sarowar M, Fox D, Stevenson M, Pepper C, Palmer S, Woolacott N. Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Oct;14 (Suppl. 2):55–62. doi: 10.3310/hta14suppl2/08. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Singh Bramah N, Connolly Stuart J, Crijns Harry J G M, Roy Denis, Kowey Peter R, Capucci Alessandro, Radzik David, Aliot Etienne M, Hohnloser Stefan H. Dronedarone for maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation or flutter. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007 Sep 6;357 (10):987–99. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lowres Nicole, Neubeck Lis, Redfern Julie, Freedman S Ben. Screening to identify unknown atrial fibrillation. A systematic review. Thromb. Haemost. 2013 Aug;110 (2):213–22. doi: 10.1160/TH13-02-0165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Potpara Tatjana S, Polovina Marija M, Marinkovic Jelena M, Lip Gregory Y H. A comparison of clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with first-diagnosed atrial fibrillation: the Belgrade Atrial Fibrillation Study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013 Oct 12;168 (5):4744–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.07.234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Glotzer Taya V, Hellkamp Anne S, Zimmerman John, Sweeney Michael O, Yee Raymond, Marinchak Roger, Cook James, Paraschos Alexander, Love John, Radoslovich Glauco, Lee Kerry L, Lamas Gervasio A. Atrial high rate episodes detected by pacemaker diagnostics predict death and stroke: report of the Atrial Diagnostics Ancillary Study of the MOde Selection Trial (MOST). Circulation. 2003 Apr 1;107 (12):1614–9. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000057981.70380.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Senatore Gaetano, Stabile Giuseppe, Bertaglia Emanuele, Donnici Giovanni, De Simone Antonio, Zoppo Franco, Turco Pietro, Pascotto Pietro, Fazzari Massimo. Role of transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring in detecting short-term arrhythmia recurrences after radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2005 Mar 15;45 (6):873–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.11.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gillis Anne M, Morck Margaret. Atrial fibrillation after DDDR pacemaker implantation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2002 Jun;13 (6):542–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2002.00542.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Israel Carsten W, Grönefeld Gerian, Ehrlich Joachim R, Li Yi-Gang, Hohnloser Stefan H. Long-term risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation as documented by an implantable monitoring device: implications for optimal patient care. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004 Jan 7;43 (1):47–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.08.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Orlov Michael V, Ghali Jalal K, Araghi-Niknam Mohsen, Sherfesee Lou, Sahr Diane, Hettrick Douglas A. Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation in pacemaker recipients: incidence, progression, and determinants based on the atrial high rate trial. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007 Mar;30 (3):404–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00682.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gold Michael R, Theuns Dominic A, Knight Bradley P, Sturdivant J Lacy, Sanghera Rick, Ellenbogen Kenneth A, Wood Mark A, Burke Martin C. Head-to-head comparison of arrhythmia discrimination performance of subcutaneous and transvenous ICD arrhythmia detection algorithms: the START study. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2012 Apr;23 (4):359–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02199.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hanke Thorsten, Charitos Efstratios I, Stierle Ulrich, Karluss Antje, Kraatz Ernst, Graf Bernhard, Hagemann Axel, Misfeld Martin, Sievers Hans H. Twenty-four-hour holter monitor follow-up does not provide accurate heart rhythm status after surgical atrial fibrillation ablation therapy: up to 12 months experience with a novel permanently implantable heart rhythm monitor device. Circulation. 2009 Sep 15;120 (11 Suppl):S177–84. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.838474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Esperer Hans D, Esperer Chris, Cohen Richard J. Cardiac arrhythmias imprint specific signatures on Lorenz plots. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2008 Jan;13 (1):44–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-474X.2007.00200.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hindricks Gerhard, Pokushalov Evgueny, Urban Lubos, Taborsky Milos, Kuck Karl-Heinz, Lebedev Dmitry, Rieger Guido, Pürerfellner Helmut. Performance of a new leadless implantable cardiac monitor in detecting and quantifying atrial fibrillation: Results of the XPECT trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Apr;3 (2):141–7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.109.877852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guercini F, Acciarresi M, Agnelli G, Paciaroni M. Cryptogenic stroke: time to determine aetiology. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2008 Apr;6 (4):549–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02903.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Liao Joy, Khalid Zahira, Scallan Ciaran, Morillo Carlos, O'Donnell Martin. Noninvasive cardiac monitoring for detecting paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter after acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2007 Nov;38 (11):2935–40. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.478685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kessler D K, Kessler K M. Is ambulatory electrocardiography useful in the evaluation of patients with recent stroke? Chest. 1995 Apr;107 (4):916–8. doi: 10.1378/chest.107.4.916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Koudstaal P J, van Gijn J, Klootwijk A P, van der Meche F G, Kappelle L J. Holter monitoring in patients with transient and focal ischemic attacks of the brain. Stroke. 1986 Mar 1;17 (2):192–5. doi: 10.1161/01.str.17.2.192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Douen Andre G, Pageau Nicole, Medic Sejla. Serial electrocardiographic assessments significantly improve detection of atrial fibrillation 2.6-fold in patients with acute stroke. Stroke. 2008 Feb;39 (2):480–2. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.492595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ritter Martin A, Kochhäuser Simon, Duning Thomas, Reinke Florian, Pott Christian, Dechering Dirk G, Eckardt Lars, Ringelstein E Bernd. Occult atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke: detection by 7-day electrocardiogram versus implantable cardiac monitors. Stroke. 2013 May;44 (5):1449–52. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.676189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Cotter Paul E, Martin Peter J, Ring Liam, Warburton Elizabeth A, Belham Mark, Pugh Peter J. Incidence of atrial fibrillation detected by implantable loop recorders in unexplained stroke. Neurology. 2013 Apr 23;80 (17):1546–50. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828f1828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rizos Timolaos, Güntner Janina, Jenetzky Ekkehart, Marquardt Lars, Reichardt Christine, Becker Rüdiger, Reinhardt Roland, Hepp Thomas, Kirchhof Paulus, Aleynichenko Elena, Ringleb Peter, Hacke Werner, Veltkamp Roland. Continuous stroke unit electrocardiographic monitoring versus 24-hour Holter electrocardiography for detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after stroke. Stroke. 2012 Oct;43 (10):2689–94. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.654954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sanna Tommaso, Diener Hans-Christoph, Passman Rod S, Di Lazzaro Vincenzo, Bernstein Richard A, Morillo Carlos A, Rymer Marilyn Mollman, Thijs Vincent, Rogers Tyson, Beckers Frank, Lindborg Kate, Brachmann Johannes. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 Jun 26;370 (26):2478–86. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1313600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gladstone David J, Spring Melanie, Dorian Paul, Panzov Val, Thorpe Kevin E, Hall Judith, Vaid Haris, O'Donnell Martin, Laupacis Andreas, Côté Robert, Sharma Mukul, Blakely John A, Shuaib Ashfaq, Hachinski Vladimir, Coutts Shelagh B, Sahlas Demetrios J, Teal Phil, Yip Samuel, Spence J David, Buck Brian, Verreault Steve, Casaubon Leanne K, Penn Andrew, Selchen Daniel, Jin Albert, Howse David, Mehdiratta Manu, Boyle Karl, Aviv Richard, Kapral Moira K, Mamdani Muhammad. Atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 Jun 26;370 (26):2467–77. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hindricks Gerhard, Piorkowski Christopher, Tanner Hildegard, Kobza Richard, Gerds-Li Jin-Hong, Carbucicchio Corrado, Kottkamp Hans. Perception of atrial fibrillation before and after radiofrequency catheter ablation: relevance of asymptomatic arrhythmia recurrence. Circulation. 2005 Jul 19;112 (3):307–13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.518837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Klemm Hanno U, Ventura Rodolfo, Rostock Thomas, Brandstrup Benedikt, Risius Tim, Meinertz Thomas, Willems Stephan. Correlation of symptoms to ECG diagnosis following atrial fibrillation ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2006 Feb;17 (2):146–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2005.00288.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pokushalov Evgeny, Romanov Alexander, Corbucci Giorgio, Artyomenko Sergey, Turov Alex, Shirokova Natalya, Karaskov Alexander. Use of an implantable monitor to detect arrhythmia recurrences and select patients for early repeat catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a pilot study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011 Dec;4 (6):823–31. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.111.964809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Manganiello Sabrina, Anselmino Matteo, Amellone Claudia, Pelissero Elisa, Giuggia Marco, Trapani Giuseppe, Giordano Benedetta, Senatore Gaetano, Gaita Fiorenzo. Symptomatic and asymptomatic long-term recurrences following transcatheter atrial fibrillation ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2014 Jun;37 (6):697–702. doi: 10.1111/pace.12387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Joshi Sandeep, Choi Andrew D, Kamath Ganesh S, Raiszadeh Farbod, Marrero Daniel, Badheka Apurva, Mittal Suneet, Steinberg Jonathan S. Prevalence, predictors, and prognosis of atrial fibrillation early after pulmonary vein isolation: findings from 3 months of continuous automatic ECG loop recordings. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2009 Oct;20 (10):1089–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01506.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kirchhof Paulus, Auricchio Angelo, Bax Jeroen, Crijns Harry, Camm John, Diener Hans-Christoph, Goette Andreas, Hindricks Gerd, Hohnloser Stefan, Kappenberger Lukas, Kuck Karl-Heinz, Lip Gregory Y H, Olsson Bertil, Meinertz Thomas, Priori Silvia, Ravens Ursula, Steinbeck Gerhard, Svernhage Elisabeth, Tijssen Jan, Vincent Alphons, Breithardt Günter. Outcome parameters for trials in atrial fibrillation: recommendations from a consensus conference organized by the German Atrial Fibrillation Competence NETwork and the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace. 2007 Nov;9 (11):1006–23. doi: 10.1093/europace/eum191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Capucci Alessandro, Guerra Federico. Late postoperative atrial fibrillation: minor surgery complication or major cardiovascular issue? J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2011 Jun;12 (6):381–2. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0b013e328347c624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lorenzoni Giulia, Folino Franco, Soriani Nicola, Iliceto Sabino, Gregori Dario. Cost-effectiveness of early detection of atrial fibrillation via remote control of implanted devices. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Oct;20 (5):570–7. doi: 10.1111/jep.12132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kamel Hooman, Hegde Manu, Johnson Derek R, Gage Brian F, Johnston S Claiborne. Cost-effectiveness of outpatient cardiac monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation after ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2010 Jul;41 (7):1514–20. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.582437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mayer Felix, Stahrenberg Raoul, Gröschel Klaus, Mostardt Sarah, Biermann Janine, Edelmann Frank, Liman Jan, Wasem Jürgen, Goehler Alexander, Wachter Rolf, Neumann Anja. Cost-effectiveness of 7-day-Holter monitoring alone or in combination with transthoracic echocardiography in patients with cerebral ischemia. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013 Dec;102 (12):875–84. doi: 10.1007/s00392-013-0601-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lowres Nicole, Neubeck Lis, Salkeld Glenn, Krass Ines, McLachlan Andrew J, Redfern Julie, Bennett Alexandra A, Briffa Tom, Bauman Adrian, Martinez Carlos, Wallenhorst Christopher, Lau Jerrett K, Brieger David B, Sy Raymond W, Freedman S Ben. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of stroke prevention through community screening for atrial fibrillation using iPhone ECG in pharmacies. The SEARCH-AF study. Thromb. Haemost. 2014 Jun;111 (6):1167–76. doi: 10.1160/TH14-03-0231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Shanmugam Nesan, Boerdlein Annegret, Proff Jochen, Ong Peter, Valencia Oswaldo, Maier Sebastian K G, Bauer Wolfgang R, Paul Vince, Sack Stefan. Detection of atrial high-rate events by continuous home monitoring: clinical significance in the heart failure-cardiac resynchronization therapy population. Europace. 2012 Feb;14 (2):230–7. doi: 10.1093/europace/eur293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Brambatti Michela, Connolly Stuart J, Gold Michael R, Morillo Carlos A, Capucci Alessandro, Muto Carmine, Lau Chu P, Van Gelder Isabelle C, Hohnloser Stefan H, Carlson Mark, Fain Eric, Nakamya Juliet, Mairesse Georges H, Halytska Marta, Deng Wei Q, Israel Carsten W, Healey Jeff S. Temporal relationship between subclinical atrial fibrillation and embolic events. Circulation. 2014 May 27;129 (21):2094–9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Atrial Fibrillation are provided here courtesy of CardioFront, LLC

RESOURCES