Prediction models for atrial fibrillation applicable in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with an increased stroke risk. The use of multivariable prediction models could result in more efficient primary AF screening by selecting at-risk individuals. We aimed to determine which model may be best suitable for increasing efficiency of future primary AF screening efforts. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review on multivariable models derived, validated, and/or augmented for AF prediction in community cohorts using Pubmed, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) through 1 August 2019. We performed meta-analysis of model discrimination with the summary C-statistic as the primary expression of associations using a random effects model. In case of high heterogeneity, we calculated a 95% prediction interval. We used the CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) checklist for risk of bias assessment. We included 27 studies with a total of 2 978 659 unique participants among 20 cohorts with mean age ranging from 42 to 76 years. We identified 21 risk models used for incident AF risk in community cohorts. Three models showed significant summary discrimination despite high heterogeneity: CHARGE-AF (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology) [summary C-statistic 0.71; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.66-0.76], FHS-AF (Framingham Heart Study risk score for AF) (summary C-statistic 0.70; 95% CI 0.64-0.76), and CHA2DS2-VASc (summary C-statistic 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.74). Of these, CHARGE-AF and FHS-AF had originally been derived for AF incidence prediction. Only CHARGE-AF, which comprises easily obtainable measurements and medical history elements, showed significant summary discrimination among cohorts that had applied a uniform (5-year) risk prediction window. CONCLUSION: CHARGE-AF appeared most suitable for primary screening purposes in terms of performance and applicability in older community cohorts of predominantly European descent.

Diagnostic properties of natriuretic peptides and opportunities for personalized thresholds for detecting heart failure in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent syndrome with considerable disease burden, healthcare utilization and costs. Timely diagnosis is essential to improve outcomes. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) in detecting HF in primary care. Our second aim was to explore if personalized thresholds (using age, sex, or other readily available parameters) would further improve diagnostic accuracy over universal thresholds. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed among patients without prior HF who underwent natriuretic peptide (NP) testing in the Amsterdam General Practice Network between January 2011 and December 2021. HF incidence was based on registration out to 90 days after NP testing. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated with AUROC, sensitivity and specificity based on guideline-recommended thresholds (125 ng/L for NT-proBNP and 35 ng/L for BNP). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: A total of 15,234 patients underwent NP testing, 6,870 with BNP (4.5 % had HF), and 8,364 with NT-proBNP (5.7 % had HF). NT-proBNP was more accurate than BNP, with an AUROC of 89.9 % (95 % CI: 88.4-91.2) vs. 85.9 % (95 % CI 83.5-88.2), with higher sensitivity (95.3 vs. 89.7 %) and specificity (59.1 vs. 58.0 %). Differentiating NP cut-off by clinical variables modestly improved diagnostic accuracy for BNP and NT-proBNP compared with a universal threshold. CONCLUSIONS: NT-proBNP outperforms BNP for detecting HF in primary care. Personalized instead of universal diagnostic thresholds led to modest improvement.