Atrial fibrillation (AF) is usually asymptomatic and often associated with established cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension. The prevalence atrial fibrillation in patients admitted to Malaysian hospitals has been determined, but asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AAF) in hypertensive patients in the primary care setting is not established. This study reports the prevalence of AAF in hypertensive patients in Malaysia, in a primary care setting. The overall prevalence of AAF was 0.75% with no differences between the gender. The prevalence of AAF increases with age – in the age groups of 30-39, >40-49, >50-59, >60-69, 70-79 and >80 years old were 0%, 0.17%, 0.35%, 2.32%, 2.59%, and 0% respectively. Hypertensive patients with age of ≥ 61 year old were associated with a probability of 10.6 times higher for AAF. We suggest the age threshold to screen for AAF to be age of 60. It is estimated that there are 49,029 Malaysians with AAF in 2010. A large population is at risk of AAF-related complications. There is justification for an even greater emphasis on diagnostic, primary and secondary prevention strategies.

Background and objectives The recent joint ACCF/AHA clinical competence statement on cardiac imaging with multi-detector computed tomography recommended a minimum of 6 months training and 300 contrast examinations, of which the candidate must be directly involved in at least 100 studies. Whether this is adequate to become proficient in interpretation of coronary computed tomogsignificant coronary stenosis in a center with 1 year's experience using a 64-row scanner. Methods A total of 778 patients underwent contrast-enhanced CTA between January and December 2005. Out of these patients, 301 patients also underwent contrast-enhanced conventional coronary angiography (CCA). These patients were divided into 4 groups according to the time the examination was underwent. Group Q1: first quarter of the year (n=20), Group Q2: second quarter (n=128), Group Q3: third quarter (n=134), and Group Results The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were Q1 - 64%, 89%, 49% and 94%, respectively; Q2 -79%, 96%, 74% and 97%, respectively; Q3 - 78%, 96%, 74%, 97%, respectively, and Q4 - 100% for all. Conclusions In a center with formal training and high caseload, our accuracy in CTA analysis reached a plateau after 6 months experience. Test-bolus protocols produce better image quality and can improve accuracy. New centers embarking on CTA will need to overcome an initial 6-month learning curve depending upon the caseload during which time they should consider correlation with CCA.

Objective: A quick assessment tool for screening individuals with depression or anxiety is pertinent in mental-health set up. This study aims to validate the K10 and the K6 to screen patients with non-specific psychological distress in a Malaysian population. Methods: Translation of the questionnaire was done from English to Malay. Face validity was conducted on patients, and a pilot study was performed to assess the reliability of the K10 questionnaire. Fieldwork was conducted to determine the reliability and validity of the K10 questionnaire based on convenience sampling of healthy individuals and patients diagnosed with psychiatric illness. Malay version for K10 was administered to healthy participants (group without psychological distress) and patients on psychiatric clinic follow up (psychological distress). Data collection was done between August 2016 and September 2016. Result: A total of 94 subjects were recruited in the study, of which 32 formed the case group. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for K10 were 0.837(control) and 0.885 (case), as for K6 were 0.716 (control) and 0.859 (case). The total score of the K10 and the K6 clearly differentiated between the control and case groups (p<0.001). The area under the curve for K10 and K6 were 0.84 with 95% CI (0.81, 0.96) and 0.86 with 95% CI (0.77, 0.94) respectively. For K10, at the optimal cut-off score of 17, the sensitivity and specificity were 84.4% and 75.3% respectively while for K6, at the optimal cut-off score of 11, the sensitivity and specificity were 78.1% and 75.8%, respectively. Conclusion: The Malay version of the K10 and the K6 are reliable and valid to be used for screening patients with non-specific psychological distress in a Malaysian population. Kessler psychological distress scale has minimal items and yet this Kessler psychological distress scales have minimal items and yet are an effective screening tool.