ArticleGlobal heart2022
Remote Screening for Atrial Fibrillation by a Federal Cardiac Monitoring System in Primary Care Patients in Russia: Results from the Prospective Interventional Multicenter FECAS-AFS Study.
Article in Global heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease using single-lead electrocardiogram parameters.World journal of cardiology · 2025Trial
- Temporal trends of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter burden across the BRICS: An observational study analysis for the GBD 2021.Medicine · 2026Observational
- Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades - a narrative review.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Screening for atrial fibrillation has the potential to significantly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, questions in regard to how to screen, on whom to screen, and the optimal setting of screening remain unanswered. Objective: To assess the applicability of a federal cardiac monitoring for atrial fibrillation (AF) screening and remote heart rhythm monitoring in patients at high cardiovascular risk in a mixed urban and rural population in Russia. Methods: This is a prospective multicenter cohort study including 3249 individuals with high cardiovascular risk (mean age 56 ± 12.8 years) from the larger Moscow region who were screened for AF using a smartphone-case based single-lead ECG monitor over a period of 18 month. The endpoints were considered as number of newly diagnosed AF; mean time to diagnosis; number of patients for the first time assigned to anticoagulation therapy; frequency of adverse events. Results: A trial fibrillation was diagnosed in 126 patients, 36 of them for the first time. The mean time to diagnosis was 3 ± 2 days. Of 36 patients, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was ≥1 in 34 cases, ≥2 in 29 cases. Anticoagulant therapy was first induced in 31 patients. One death in newly diagnosed group and two deaths in chronic group were registered. There were a total of eight hospitalizations: one in newly diagnosed and seven in chronic AF patients. Conclusion: Our results indicate that a Federal AF screening system in patients at high cardiovascular risk by using a smartphone-case based single lead ECG which is supported by centrally located ECG specialist and central data management is feasible and reliable when performed in a mixed urban and rural area. Further studies are needed to evaluate the full potential of this approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.