J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026 Apr 14;87(14):1798-1813. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.087.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) may lead to earlier detection and initiation of preventive measures. Current AF screening approaches using a guideline age-based threshold of ≥65 years have shown limited yield.
OBJECTIVES: In an AF screening trial, we assessed whether the screening effect was larger among individuals at elevated AF risk using validated clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG)-based artificial intelligence (AI) risk models.
METHODS: VITAL-AF was a cluster-randomized trial of patients aged ≥65 years treated at 1 of 16 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients randomized to a screening practice were screened using a single-lead ECG. Among VITAL-AF participants without prevalent AF with at least one 12-lead ECG within 3 years before enrollment, we estimated AF risk using 3 validated models derived outside of VITAL-AF: the Cohorts of Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology-AF (CHARGE-AF) clinical score, an AI-based model using a 12-lead ECG alone (ECG-AI), and a model combining ECG-AI and CHARGE-AF (CH-AI). Two-year incident AF discrimination was assessed by the time-dependent area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and average precision. AF screening effect was defined as the difference in 2-year incident AF diagnosis rate (per 100 person-years) in screening vs control across AF risk deciles.
RESULTS: Of 30,630 VITAL-AF participants without prevalent AF, 16,937 had pretrial ECG and clinical data. Each score discriminated 2-year AF risk according to AUROC (CHARGE-AF: 0.711 [95% CI: 0.671-0.749]; ECG-AI: 0.784 [95% CI: 0.743-0.819]; CH-AI: 0.788 [95% CI: 0.754-0.824]) and average precision (0.0952 [95% CI: 0.0836-0.112]; 0.132 [95% CI: 0.113-0.157]; 0.133 [95% CI: 0.117-0.159]). An AF screening effect was observed in the top decile of CH-AI (AF diagnosis rate in screening 10.07/100 person-years [95% 8.28-11.87] vs 7.76 [95% 6.30-9.21] in control, P < 0.05), corresponding to a difference in AF diagnosis rate of 2.32/100 person-years (95% CI: 0.01-4.63) and number-needed-to-screen of 43 per year.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECG-based AI and clinical factors identified individuals at particularly high risk for AF who may benefit from screening. Findings suggest a trade-off between increasing AF screening efficiency and decreasing population coverage (ie, restriction of the screening pool). Future studies are needed to determine whether a risk-based approach is optimal or whether consideration of additional clinical- and systems-level factors (eg, access, health care system engagement) can further refine AF screening strategies. (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Among Older Patients in Primary Care Clinics [VITAL-AF]; NCT03515057).
PMID:41983618 | DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.087
