Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Bradyarrhythmias in Patients Screened for Atrial Fibrillation vs Usual Care

Abstract

Importance There is increasing interest in heart rhythm monitoring and technologies to detect subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF), which may lead to incidental diagnosis of bradyarrhythmias. Objective To assess bradyarrhythmia prevalence and prognostic significance in persons screened for AF using implantable loop recorder (ILR) compared with unscreened persons. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a post hoc analysis of the Implantable Loop Recorder Detection of Atrial Fibrillation to Prevent Stroke (LOOP) randomized clinical trial, which took place in 4 sites in Denmark. Participants were 70 years or older without known AF but diagnosed with at least 1 of the following: hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, or prior stroke. Participants were recruited by letter invitation between January 31, 2014, and May 17, 2016. The median (IQR) follow-up period was 65 (59-70) months. Analysis took place between February and June 2022. Interventions ILR screening for AF with treatment of any bradyarrhythmia left to the discretion of the treating physician (ILR group) vs usual care (control group). Main Outcomes and Measures Adjudicated bradyarrhythmia episodes, pacemaker implantation, syncope, and sudden cardiovascular death. Results A total of 6004 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 75 [4.1] years; 2837 [47.3%] female; 5444 [90.7%] with hypertension; 1224 [20.4%] with prior syncope), 4503 to control and 1501 to ILR. Bradyarrhythmia was diagnosed in 172 participants (3.8%) in the control group vs 312 participants (20.8%) in the ILR group (hazard ratio [HR], 6.21 [95% CI, 5.15-7.48];P < .001), and these were asymptomatic in 41 participants (23.8%) vs 249 participants (79.8%), respectively. The most common bradyarrhythmia was sinus node dysfunction followed by high-grade atrioventricular block. Risk factors for bradyarrhythmia included higher age, male sex, and prior syncope. A pacemaker was implanted in 132 participants (2.9%) vs 67 (4.5%) (HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.14-2.06];P < .001), syncope occurred in 120 (2.7%) vs 33 (2.2%) (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.56-1.22];P = .34), and sudden cardiovascular death occurred in 49 (1.1%) vs 18 (1.2%) (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.64-1.90];P = .71) in the control and ILR groups, respectively. Bradyarrhythmias were associated with subsequent syncope, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, with no interaction between bradyarrhythmia and randomization group. Conclusions and Relevance More than 1 in 5 persons older than 70 years with cardiovascular risk factors can be diagnosed with bradyarrhythmias when long-term continous monitoring for AF is applied. In this study, ILR screening led to a 6-fold increase in bradyarrhythmia diagnoses and a significant increase in pacemaker implantations compared with usual care but no change in the risk of syncope or sudden death.