Response to Letter by Haft
Response:
We appreciate Dr Haft’s interest in our systematic review and congratulate him on a very interesting study. The results of their study raise important issues regarding patient selection and build on our observations. Extended cardiac event monitoring is inconvenient for patients, time-consuming and, presently, of limited availability. Clearly, identifying patients at greatest risk of occult atrial fibrillation would allow more efficient clinical application. However, we believe further research is required to develop and validate a simple clinical prediction rule that would categorize patients into low, medium and high-risk of occult atrial fibrillation, based on clinical factors and results of initial investigations.
Screening a wider population of “high-risk” patients without a history of stroke is an exciting prospect. Efficient and accurate approaches to detecting occult atrial fibrillation for primary prevention of stroke would have enormous implications for stroke prevention at a population level. Undoubtedly, this area of research will assume increasing importance with advances in technologies to monitor cardiac rhythms noninvasively.
Acknowledgments
Disclosures
None.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2008.
Versions
You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
History
Published online: 24 April 2008
Published in print: 1 June 2008
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginPurchase Options
Purchase this article to access the full text.
eLetters(0)
eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.
Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.