ObjectiveTo investigate whether opportunistic screening in primary care increases the detection of atrial fibrillation compared with usual care.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.Setting47 intention-to-screen and 49 usual care primary care practices in the Netherlands, not blinded for allocation; the study was carried out from September 2015 to August 2018.ParticipantsIn each practice, a fixed sample of 200 eligible patients, aged 65 or older, with no known history of atrial fibrillation in the electronic medical record system, were randomly selected. In the intention-to-screen group, 9218 patients eligible for screening were included, 55.0% women, mean age 75.2 years. In the usual care group, 9526 patients were eligible for screening, 54.3% women, mean age 75.0 years.InterventionsOpportunistic screening (that is, screening in patients visiting their general practice) consisted of three index tests: pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement with an atrial fibrillation algorithm, and electrocardiography (ECG) with a handheld single lead electrocardiographic device. The reference standard was 12 lead ECG, performed in patients with at least one positive index test and in a sample of patients (10%) with three negative tests. If 12 lead ECG showed no atrial fibrillation, patients were invited for more screening by continuous monitoring with a Holter electrocardiograph for two weeks.Main outcome measuresDifference in the detection rate of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation over one year in intention-to-screen versus usual care practices.ResultsFollow-up was complete for 8874 patients in the intention-to-screen practices and for 9102 patients in the usual care practices. 144 (1.62%) new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation in the intention-to-screen group versus 139 (1.53%) in the usual care group were found (adjusted odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.35)). Of 9218 eligible patients in the intention-to-screen group, 4106 (44.5%) participated in the screening protocol. In these patients, 12 lead ECG detected newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in 26 patients (0.63%). In the 266 patients who continued with Holter monitoring, four more diagnoses of atrial fibrillation were found.ConclusionsOpportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients, aged 65 and over, did not increase the detection rate of atrial fibrillation, which implies that opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation is not useful in this setting.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register No NL4776 (old NTR4914).

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is a common cause of stroke and other morbidity. Adequate treatment with anticoagulants reduces the risk of stroke by 60 %. Early detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation could prevent strokes. Atrial fibrillation is often asymptomatic and/or paroxysmal.Case-finding with pulse palpation is an effective screening method, but new methods for detecting atrial fibrillation have been developed. To detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ambulatory rhythm recording is needed.This study aims to determine the yield of case-finding for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients. In addition, it will determine the diagnostic accuracy of three different case-finding methods.Methods/DesignIn a multicenter cluster randomised controlled trial, we compare an enhanced protocol for case-finding of atrial fibrillation with usual care. We recruit 96 practices. We include primary care patients aged 65 years or older not diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. Within each practice, a cluster of 200 patients is randomly selected and marked. Practices are evenly randomised to intervention or control group. The allocation is not blinded.When a marked patient visits an intervention practice, the case-finding protocol starts, consisting of: pulse palpation, sphygmomanometer with automated atrial fibrillation detection and handheld single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). All patients with at least 1 positive test and a random sample of patients with negative tests receive a 12-lead ECG. Patients without atrial fibrillation on the 12-lead ECG, undergo additional continuous Holter and use the handheld single-lead ECG at home for 2 weeks.Control practices provide care as usual.The study runs for 1 year in each cluster. The primary outcomes are the difference in detection rate of new AF between intervention and control practices and the accuracy of three index tests to diagnose AF. We are currently recruiting practices.The ‘Detecting and Diagnosing Atrial Fibrillation’ (D2AF) study will determine the yield of an intensive case-finding strategy and the diagnostic accuracy of three index tests to diagnose atrial fibrillation in a primary care setting.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register: NTR4914, registered on the 25 of November 2014.

A variety of consumer-facing wearables, devices and apps are marketed directly to consumers to detect atrial fibrillation (AF). However, their management is not defined. Our aim was to explore their role for AF screening via a survey. Methods and Results: An anonymous web-based survey was undertaken by 588 health care professionals (HCPs) (response rate 23.7%). Overall, 57% HCPs currently advise wearables/apps for AF detection in their patients: this was much higher for electrophysiologists and nurses/allied health professionals (74-75%) than cardiologists (57%) or other physicians (34-38%). Approximately 46% recommended handheld (portable) single-lead dedicated ECG devices, or, less frequently, wristband ECG monitors with similar differentials between HCPs . Only 10-15% HCPs advised photoplethysmographic wristband monitors or smartphone apps. In over half of the HCP consultations for AF detected by wearables/apps, the decision to screen was entirely the patient's. About 45% of HCPs perceive a potential role for AF screening in people aged >65 years or in those with risk factors. Almost 70% of HCPs believed we are not yet ready for mass consumer-initiated screening for AF using wearable devices/ apps, with patient anxiety, risk of false positives and negatives, and risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding perceived as potential disadvantages, and perceived need for appropriate management pathways. Conclusions: There is a great potential for appropriate use of consumer-facing wearables/apps for AF screening. However, it appears that there is a need to better define suitable individuals for screening and an appropriate mechanism for managing positive results before they can be recommended by HCPs.

BackgroundDetection and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) are important given the serious health consequences. AF may be silent or paroxysmal and remain undetected. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) have appropriate equipment and optimally utilise it to detect AF. This case vignette study aimed to describe current practice and to explore possible improvements to optimise AF detection.MethodsBetween June and July 2017, we performed an online case vignette study among Dutch GPs. We aimed at obtaining at least 75 responses to the questionnaire. We collected demographics and asked GPs’ opinion on their knowledge and experience in diagnosing AF. GPs could indicate which diagnostic tools they have for AF. In six case vignettes with varying symptom frequency and physical signs, they could make diagnostic choices. The last questions covered screening and actions after diagnosing AF. We compared the answers to the Dutch guideline for GPs on AF.ResultsSeventy-six GPs completed the questionnaire. Seventy-four GPs (97%) thought they have enough knowledge and 72 (95%) enough experience to diagnose AF. Seventy-four GPs (97%) could order or perform ECGs without the interference of a cardiologist. In case of frequent symptoms of AF, 36–40% would choose short-term (i.e. 24–48 h) and 11–19% long-term (i.e. 7 days, 14 days or 1 month) monitoring. In case of non-frequent symptoms, 29–31% would choose short-term and 21–30% long-term monitoring. If opportunistic screening in primary care proves to be effective, 83% (58/70) will support it.ConclusionsResponding GPs report to have adequate equipment, knowledge, and experience to detect and diagnose AF. Almost all participants can order ECGs. Reported monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by the guideline. AF detection could improve by increasing the monitoring duration.

IntroductionDetection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important given the risk of complications, such as stroke and heart failure, and the need for preventive measures. Detection is complicated because AF can be silent or paroxysmal. Describing current practice may give clues to improve AF detection. The aim of this study was to describe how cardiologists currently detect AF.MethodsBetween December 2014 and May 2015, we sent Dutch cardiologists an online questionnaire. Firstly, we asked which tools for detection of AF their department has. Secondly, we presented six case vignettes related to AF, in which they could choose a diagnostic tool. Thirdly, we compared the results with current guidelines.ResultsWe approached 90 cardiology departments and 48 (53%) completed the questionnaire. In asymptomatic patients with risk factors according to CHA2DS2-VASc, 40% of the cardiologists would screen for AF. In patients with signs or symptoms of AF, all but one cardiologist would start a diagnostic process. In both vignettes describing patients with non-frequent symptoms, 46% and 54% of the responders would use short-term (i. e. 24- or 48-hour) electrocardiographic monitoring, 48% and 27% would use long-term (i. e. 7 day, 14 day or one month) monitoring. In both cases describing patients with frequent symptoms, 85% of the responders would use short-term and 15% and 4% long-term monitoring.ConclusionDutch cardiologists have access to a wide variety of ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring tools. Nearly half of the cardiologists would perform opportunistic screening. In cases with non-frequent symptoms, monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by NICE.