Systematic, randomized atrial fibrillation screening using detailed phenotyping with a risk prediction model combined with patch electrocardiogram in a Swedish population aged 65 years or older: the CONSIDERING-AF trial.
Emelie Rakai, Farzaneh Etminani, Ninia Younan, Anton Andersson, Maria Andersson, Torbjörn Vik, Stefan Kunkel, Anna Sundin, Johan Holm, Angelo Modica, Helena M Linge, Purvee Parikh, Manish Wadhwa, Johan Engdahl, Emma Sandgren
{"title":"Systematic, randomized atrial fibrillation screening using detailed phenotyping with a risk prediction model combined with patch electrocardiogram in a Swedish population aged 65 years or older: the CONSIDERING-AF trial.","authors":"Emelie Rakai, Farzaneh Etminani, Ninia Younan, Anton Andersson, Maria Andersson, Torbjörn Vik, Stefan Kunkel, Anna Sundin, Johan Holm, Angelo Modica, Helena M Linge, Purvee Parikh, Manish Wadhwa, Johan Engdahl, Emma Sandgren","doi":"10.1093/europace/euaf190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Atrial fibrillation (AF), often asymptomatic and underdiagnosed, is an independent risk factor for ischaemic stroke. A knowledge gap remains regarding the optimal target population and method to use for AF screening. We aimed to test whether screening for AF using a machine learning-based risk prediction model (RPM) and 14-day continuous patch electrocardiogram (ECG) (Philips ePatch) in high-risk individuals ≥ 65 years is more effective than standard care.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Individuals ≥ 65 years were assigned to general or RPM cohort. The general cohort was randomized to control or invitation. In the RPM cohort, high-risk individuals, identified by RPM, were randomized to control or invitation. The primary outcome was 6-month AF incidence, analysed as intention-to-invite, comparing RPM + invitation with general + control. Of the 2960 randomized individuals, participation was 43% (632/1480) in invitation arms. Atrial fibrillation incidence was higher in RPM + invitation than in general + control arm (3.8%, 28/740 vs. 0.7%, 5/740; P < 0.001), yielding a risk ratio of 5.6, [95% confidence interval (2.2, 14.4)], and a number needed to invite of 32. Atrial fibrillation was more often detected in RPM + invitation than in general + invitation arm (1.1%, 8/740; P < 0.001), but not more often than in RPM + control arm (2.2%, 16/740; P = 0.07). No difference was found between general + invitation and general + control arms (1.1%, 8/740 vs. 0.7%, 5/740; P = 0.40).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among high-risk individuals ≥ 65 years, the combination of a machine learning-based RPM and long-term ECG recording was superior to standard care in identifying new AF cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":11981,"journal":{"name":"Europace","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Europace","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaf190","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF), often asymptomatic and underdiagnosed, is an independent risk factor for ischaemic stroke. A knowledge gap remains regarding the optimal target population and method to use for AF screening. We aimed to test whether screening for AF using a machine learning-based risk prediction model (RPM) and 14-day continuous patch electrocardiogram (ECG) (Philips ePatch) in high-risk individuals ≥ 65 years is more effective than standard care.
Methods and results: Individuals ≥ 65 years were assigned to general or RPM cohort. The general cohort was randomized to control or invitation. In the RPM cohort, high-risk individuals, identified by RPM, were randomized to control or invitation. The primary outcome was 6-month AF incidence, analysed as intention-to-invite, comparing RPM + invitation with general + control. Of the 2960 randomized individuals, participation was 43% (632/1480) in invitation arms. Atrial fibrillation incidence was higher in RPM + invitation than in general + control arm (3.8%, 28/740 vs. 0.7%, 5/740; P < 0.001), yielding a risk ratio of 5.6, [95% confidence interval (2.2, 14.4)], and a number needed to invite of 32. Atrial fibrillation was more often detected in RPM + invitation than in general + invitation arm (1.1%, 8/740; P < 0.001), but not more often than in RPM + control arm (2.2%, 16/740; P = 0.07). No difference was found between general + invitation and general + control arms (1.1%, 8/740 vs. 0.7%, 5/740; P = 0.40).
Conclusion: Among high-risk individuals ≥ 65 years, the combination of a machine learning-based RPM and long-term ECG recording was superior to standard care in identifying new AF cases.
期刊介绍:
EP - Europace - European Journal of Pacing, Arrhythmias and Cardiac Electrophysiology of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The journal aims to provide an avenue of communication of top quality European and international original scientific work and reviews in the fields of Arrhythmias, Pacing and Cellular Electrophysiology. The Journal offers the reader a collection of contemporary original peer-reviewed papers, invited papers and editorial comments together with book reviews and correspondence.