Evaluation of the introduction of a single-lead ECG device and digital cardiologist consultation platform among general practitioners in the Netherlands.

AIM: To evaluate the use of a single-lead electrocardiography (1L-ECG) device and digital cardiologist consultation platform in diagnosing arrhythmias among general practitioners (GPs). BACKGROUND: Handheld 1L-ECG offers a user-friendly alternative to conventional 12-lead ECG in primary care. While GPs can safely rule out arrhythmias on 1L-ECG recordings, expert consultation is required to confirm suspected arrhythmias. Little is known about GPs' experiences with both a 1L-ECG device and digital consultation platform for daily practice. METHODS: We used two distinct methods in this study. First, in an observational study, we collected and described all cases shared by GPs within a digital cardiologist consultation platform initiated by a local GP cooperative. This GP cooperative distributed KardiaMobile 1L-ECG devices among all affiliated GPs (n = 203) and invited them to this consultation platform. In the second part, we used an online questionnaire to evaluate the experiences of these GPs using the KardiaMobile and consultation platform. FINDINGS: In total, 98 (48%) GPs participated in this project, of whom 48 (49%) shared 156 cases. The expert panel was able to provide a definitive rhythm interpretation in 130 (83.3%) shared cases and answered in a median of 4 min (IQR: 2-18). GPs responding to the questionnaire (n = 43; 44%) thought the KardiaMobile was of added value for rhythm diagnostics in primary care (n = 42; 98%) and easy to use (n = 41; 95%). Most GPs (n = 36; 84%) valued the feedback from the cardiologists in the consultation platform. GPs experienced this project to have a positive impact on both the quality of care and diagnostic efficiency for patients with (suspected) cardiac arrhythmias. Although we lack a comprehensive picture of experienced impediments by GPs, solving technical issues was mentioned to be helpful for further implementation. More research is needed to explore reasons of GPs not motivated using these tools and to assess real-life clinical impact.

Evaluation of telephone triage among chest pain patients in out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands (TRACE).

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is fully integrated in Dutch out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC). Patients presenting with chest pain are initially assessed according to a standardized protocol ("Netherlands Triage Standard" [NTS]). Nevertheless, little is known about its (diagnostic) performance, nor on the impact of subsequent clinical judgements made by triage assistants and general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the current NTS chest pain protocol. METHODS: Observational, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain who contacted a regional OOH-PC facility in the Netherlands, in 2017. The clinical outcome measure involved the occurrence of a "major event," which is a composite of all-cause mortality and urgent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular conditions, occurring ≤6 weeks of initial contact. We assessed the performance using diagnostic and discriminatory properties. RESULTS: In total, 1,803 patients were included, median age was 54.0 and 57.5% were female. Major events occurred in 16.2% of patients with complete follow-up, including 99 (6.7%) cases of acute coronary syndrome and 22 (1.5%) fatal events. NTS urgency assessment showed moderate discriminatory abilities for predicting major events (c-statistic 0.66). Overall, NTS performance showed a sensitivity and specificity of 83.0% and 42.4% with a 17.0% underestimated major event rate. Triage assistants' revisions hardly improved urgency allocation. Further consideration of the clinical course following OOH-PC contact did generate a more pronounced improvement with a sensitivity of 89.4% and specificity of 61.9%. CONCLUSION: Performance of telephone triage of chest pain appears moderate at best, with acceptable safety yet limited efficiency, even after including further work-up by GPs.

Longitudinal association of premature atrial contractions with atrial fibrillation and brain ischemia in people with type 2 diabetes: The Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort.

Background: Premature atrial contractions (PACs) are potential markers for imminent onset of both atrial fibrillation (AF) and brain ischemia (BI; transient ischemic attack [TIA] or ischemic stroke). We investigated the association of PACs with incident AF and BI events separately, and of incident AF with BI events in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) without pre-existing AF or cerebrovascular disease. Methods: A prospective longitudinal study of 12,242 people with T2D without known AF or cerebrovascular disease from the Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort. Annual measurements (1998-2018) included cardiovascular risk factors, over 85,000 ECGs, and self-reported cardiovascular events. We assessed the association of PACs with incident AF and BI events and of incident AF with BI events using time-dependent Cox-regression models, adjusted for time-varying cardiovascular risk factors and medication use (Hazard Ratios with 95%CIs). Results: The baseline mean age was 62.2 ± 11.9 years. During a median follow-up of 7.0 (IQR 3.4-11.0) years, 1031 (8.4 %) participants had PACs, and 566 (4.6 %) had incident AF at any of the median 6 (IQR 3-10) annual ECG recordings. BI events occurred in 517 (4.2 %) people (304 TIAs, 213 ischemic strokes). After adjustment, PACs were associated with incident AF (Hazard Ratio, 1.96 (95%CI, 1.53-2.50)), but not with overall BI events (1.09 (0.76-1.56)), or with TIA (0.91 (0.57-1.46)) or ischemic stroke (1.50 (0.88-2.54)) separately. AF was not associated with BI events (0.95 (0.55-1.63)). Conclusions: In people with T2D without a history of AF or BI events, PACs are associated with a two-fold increased risk of incident AF.

Personalized approach using wearable technology for early detection of atrial fibrillation in high-risk primary care patients (PATCH-AF): Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia with a lifetime risk of one in 4. Unfortunately, AF often remains undetected, particularly when it is paroxysmal, for which single time-point evaluation is less effective. Recently, unobtrusive cardiac arrhythmia monitoring devices have become available, providing the opportunity to conduct prolonged electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring in a patient-friendly manner. We hypothesize that applying these devices in at risk patients may improve AF detection, particularly when used during repeated episodes. We therefore aim to evaluate the diagnostic yield of yearly screening for atrial fibrillation when using a wearable device for continuous ECG monitoring for 7 days in primary care patients ≥ 65 years deemed at high-risk of AF (CHA2DS2VASc score ≥3 for men or ≥4 for women) compared with usual care over a study period of 3 years. METHODS: Primary care based, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 10 general practices randomized to the intervention group and 10 general practices randomized to control group. In each group, we aim to enroll 930 patients, ≥65 years and a CHA2DS2VASc score ≥3 for men or ≥ 4 for women. The intervention consists of continuous ECG monitoring for 7 days at start of the study (t = 0), after one (t = 1) and 2 years (t = 2). The control practices will follow usual diagnostic care procedures. RESULTS: Results are expected in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study differs from previous randomized controlled trials, as it involves longitudinal screening of a risk-stratified population. In case of a beneficial diagnostic yield, the PATCH-AF study will add to the evidence for AF screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PATCH-AF study is registered at The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR number NL9656).

Detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care with radial pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement and handheld single-lead electrocardiography: a diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of three tests-radial pulse palpation, an electronic blood pressure monitor and a handheld single-lead ECG device-for opportunistic screening for unknown atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: We performed a diagnostic accuracy study in the intention-to-screen arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial aimed at opportunistic screening for AF in general practice. We performed radial pulse palpation, followed by electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A) and handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) in random order. If one or more index tests were positive, we performed a 12-lead ECG at shortest notice. Similarly, to limit verification bias, a random sample of patients with three negative index tests received this reference test. Additionally, we analysed the dataset using multiple imputation. We present pooled diagnostic parameters. SETTING: 47 general practices participated between September 2015 and August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In the electronic medical record system of the participating general practices (n=47), we randomly marked 200 patients of ≥65 years without AF. When they visited the practice for any reason, we invited them to participate. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, inability to give informed consent or visit the practice or having a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. OUTCOMES: Diagnostic accuracy of individual tests and test combinations to detect unknown AF. RESULTS: We included 4339 patients; 0.8% showed new AF. Sensitivity and specificity were 62.8% (range 43.1%-69.7%) and 91.8% (91.7%-91.8%) for radial pulse palpation, 70.0% (49.0%-80.6%) and 96.5% (96.3%-96.7%) for electronic blood pressure measurement and 90.1% (60.8%-100%) and 97.9% (97.8%-97.9%) for handheld ECG, respectively. Positive predictive values were 5.8% (5.3%-6.1%), 13.8% (12.2%-14.8%) and 25.2% (24.2%-25.8%), respectively. All negative predictive values were ≥99.7%. CONCLUSION: In detecting AF, electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A), but especially handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) showed better diagnostic accuracy than radial pulse palpation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register No. NL4776 (old NTR4914).

Validating risk models versus age alone for atrial fibrillation in a young Dutch population cohort: should atrial fibrillation risk prediction be expanded to younger community members?

BACKGROUND: Advancing age is the primary selection criterion for community screening for atrial fibrillation (AF), with selection often restricted to those aged ≥65 years. If multivariable models were shown to have considerable additional value over age alone in predicting AF risk among younger individuals, AF screening could be expanded to patients with lower age, but with high AF risk as per a validated risk model. METHODS: We validated risk models CHARGE-AF (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology model for AF) and FHS-AF (Framingham Heart Study model for AF), and risk scores CHA2DS2-VASc and CHA2DS2-VA, and presented their predictive abilities for 5-year and 10-year AF risk versus that of age alone in a young Dutch population cohort (PREVEND) free from AF at baseline. We assessed discrimination by the C-statistic and calibration by the calibration plot and stratified Kaplan-Meier plot using survey-weighted Cox models. RESULTS: During 5-year and 10-year follow-up there were n=98 (2.46/1000 person-years) and n=249 (3.29/1000 person-years) new AF cases, respectively, among 8265 participants with mean age 49±13 years. CHARGE-AF and FHS-AF both showed good discrimination for 5-year and 10-year AF (C-statistic range 0.83-0.86) with accurate calibration for 5-year AF, but overestimation of 10-year AF risk in highest-risk individuals. CHA2DS2-VASc and CHA2DS2-VA relatively underperformed. Age alone showed similar discrimination to that of CHARGE-AF and FHS-AF both in the overall, young PREVEND cohort and in subgroups for lower age and lower stroke risk. CONCLUSION: Multivariable models accurately discriminate for 5-year and 10-year AF risk among young European community-dwelling individuals. However, their additional discriminatory value over age alone was limited. Selection strategies for primary AF screening using multivariable models should not be expanded to younger individuals.

Risk of stroke and bleeding in relation to hypertension in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hypertension is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and carries an additional risk for complications, most notably stroke and bleeding. We assessed the history of hypertension, level of blood pressure control, and an interaction with the choice of oral anticoagulants on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that randomised patients to novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and reported outcomes stratified by presence of hypertension. Collected outcomes were: ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE), haemorrhagic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage and major bleeding. Log adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding standard error were calculated, and HRs were compared using Mantel-Haenszel random effects. Quality of the evidence was assessed with Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Five high-quality studies were eligible, including 71.527 participants who received NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) or VKAs, with median follow-up of 1.8-2.8 years. Compared with patients without hypertension, those with hypertension had higher adjusted risk for ischaemic stroke/SE (HR: 1.25, 95%-CI:1.09, 1.43) and haemorrhagic stroke (HR:1.98, 1.24-3.16). On a continuous scale, the risk of ischaemic stroke/SE increased 6-7% per 10 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure. No interactions were found between the efficacy or safety of NOACs versus VKAs in the presence or absence of hypertension. In both groups, the use of NOACs led to a lower risk of ischaemic stroke/SE, haemorrhagic stroke and intracranial haemorrhage compared with patients that used VKAs. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate blood pressure management is vital to optimally reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. The benefits of NOACs over VKAs, also apply to patients with elevated blood pressure.

Performance of risk scores for coronary artery disease: a retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain in urgent primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: Regional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact. RESULTS: A total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates. CONCLUSION: While available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.

Manual QT interval measurement with a smartphone-operated single-lead ECG versus 12-lead ECG: a within-patient diagnostic validation study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of QT measurement in a smartphone-operated, single-lead ECG (1L-ECG) device (AliveCor KardiaMobile 1L). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, within-patient diagnostic validation study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients underwent a 12-lead ECG (12L-ECG) for any non-acute indication in primary care, April 2017-July 2018. INTERVENTION: Simultaneous recording of 1L-ECGs and 12L-ECGs with blinded manual QT assessment. OUTCOMES OF INTEREST: (1) Difference in QT interval in milliseconds (ms) between the devices; (2) measurement agreement between the devices (excellent agreement <20 ms and clinically acceptable agreement <40 ms absolute difference); (3) sensitivity and specificity for detection of extreme QTc (short (≤340 ms) or long (≥480 ms)), on 1L-ECGs versus 12L-ECGs as reference standard. In case of significant discrepancy between lead I/II of 12L-ECGs and 1L-ECGs, we developed a correction tool by adding the difference between QT measurements of 12L-ECG and 1L-ECGs. RESULTS: 250 ECGs of 125 patients were included. The mean QTc interval, using Bazett's formula (QTcB), was 393±25 ms (mean±SD) in 1L-ECGs and 392±27 ms in lead I of 12L-ECGs, a mean difference of 1±21 ms, which was not statistically different (paired t-test (p=0.51) and Bland Altman method (p=0.23)). In terms of agreement between 1L-ECGs and lead I, QTcB had excellent agreement in 66.9% and clinically acceptable agreement in 93.4% of observations. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting extreme QTc were 0% and 99.2%, respectively. The comparison of 1L-ECG QTcB with lead II of 12L-ECGs showed a significant difference (p=<0.01), but when using a correction factor (+9 ms) this difference was cancelled (paired t-test (p=0.43) or Bland Altman test (p=0.57)). Moreover, it led to improved rates of excellent (71.3%) and clinically acceptable (94.3%) agreement. CONCLUSION: Smartphone-operated 1L-ECGs can be used to accurately measure the QTc interval compared with simultaneously obtained 12L-ECGs in a primary care population. This may provide an opportunity for monitoring the effects of potential QTc-prolonging medications.

The Roth score as a triage tool for detecting hypoxaemia in general practice: a diagnostic validation study in patients with possible COVID-19.

AIM: To validate the Roth score as a triage tool for detecting hypoxaemia. BACKGROUNDS: The virtual assessment of patients has become increasingly important during the corona virus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, but has limitations as to the evaluation of deteriorating respiratory function. This study presents data on the validity of the Roth score as a triage tool for detecting hypoxaemia remotely in potential COVID-19 patients in general practice. METHODS: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted in Dutch general practice. Patients aged ≥18 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were asked to rapidly count from 1 to 30 in a single breath. The Roth score involves the highest number counted during exhalation (counting number) and the time taken to reach the maximal count (counting time).Outcome measures were (1) the correlation between both Roth score measurements and simultaneous pulse oximetry (SpO2) on room air and (2) discrimination (c-statistic), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Roth score for detecting hypoxaemia (SpO2 < 95%). FINDINGS: A total of 33 physicians enrolled 105 patients (52.4% female, mean age of 52.6 ± 20.4 years). A positive correlation was found between counting number and SpO2 (rs = 0.44, P < 0.001), whereas only a weak correlation was found between counting time and SpO2 (rs = 0.15, P = 0.14). Discrimination for hypoxaemia was higher for counting number [c-statistic 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96)] than for counting time [c-statistic 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.93)]. Optimal diagnostic performance was found at a counting number of 20, with a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI: 68.1-99.8) and a specificity of 77.8% (95% CI: 67.8-85.9). A counting time of 7 s showed the best sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI: 57.2-98.2) and specificity of 81.1% (95% CI: 71.5-88.6). CONCLUSIONS: A Roth score, with an optimal counting number cut-off value of 20, maybe of added value for signalling hypoxaemia in general practice. Further external validation is warranted before recommending integration in telephone triage.

Screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in primary care using Holter monitoring and intermittent, ambulatory single-lead electrocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Timely detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important because of its increased risk of thrombo-embolic events. Single time point screening interventions fall short in detection of paroxysmal AF, which requires prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring, usually using a Holter. However, traditional 24-48 h Holter monitoring is less appropriate for screening purposes because of its low diagnostic yield. Intermittent, ambulatory screening using a single-lead electrocardiogram (1 L-ECG) device can offer a more efficient alternative. METHODS: Primary care patients of ≥65 years participated in an opportunistic screening study for AF. We invited patients with a negative 12 L-ECG to wear a Holter monitor for two weeks and to use a MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device thrice daily. We report the yield of paroxysmal AF found by Holter monitoring and calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the 1 L-ECG device's built-in AF detection algorithm with the Holter monitor as reference standard. RESULTS: We included 270 patients, of whom four had AF in a median of 8.0 days of Holter monitoring, a diagnostic yield of 1.5% (95%-CI: 0.4-3.8%). In 205 patients we performed simultaneous 1 L-ECG screening. For diagnosing AF based on the 1 L-ECG device's AF detection algorithm, sensitivity was 66.7% (95%-CI: 9.4-99.2%), specificity 68.8% (95%-CI: 61.9-75.1%), positive predictive value 3.1% (95%-CI: 1.4-6.8%) and negative predictive value 99.3% (95%-CI: 96.6-99.9%). CONCLUSION: We found a low diagnostic yield of paroxysmal AF using Holter monitoring in elderly primary care patients with a negative 12 L-ECG. The diagnostic accuracy of an intermittently, ambulatory used MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device as interpreted by its built-in AF detection algorithm is limited.

Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters under clinical conditions, with arterial blood gas measurement (SaO2) as reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, validation study. SETTING: Intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients requiring SaO2-monitoring. INTERVENTIONS: The studied oximeters are top-selling in Europe/USA (AFAC FS10D, AGPTEK FS10C, ANAPULSE ANP 100, Cocobear, Contec CMS50D1, HYLOGY MD-H37, Mommed YM101, PRCMISEMED F4PRO, PULOX PO-200 and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL). Directly after collection of a SaO2 blood sample, we obtained pulse oximeter readings (SpO2). SpO2-readings were performed in rotating order, blinded for SaO2 and completed <10 min after blood sample collection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Bias (SpO2-SaO2) mean, root mean square difference (ARMS), mean absolute error (MAE) and accuracy in identifying hypoxaemia (SaO2 ≤90%). As a clinical index test, we included a hospital-grade SpO2-monitor (Philips). RESULTS: In 35 consecutive patients, we obtained 2258 SpO2-readings and 234 SaO2-samples. Mean bias ranged from -0.6 to -4.8. None of the pulse oximeters met ARMS ≤3%, the requirement set by International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)-standards and required for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 501(k)-clearance. The MAE ranged from 2.3 to 5.1, and five out of ten pulse oximeters met the requirement of ≤3%. For hypoxaemia, negative predictive values were 98%-99%. Positive predictive values ranged from 11% to 30%. Highest accuracy (95% CI) was found for Contec CMS50D1; 91% (86-94) and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL; 90% (85-94). The hospital-grade SpO2-monitor had an ARMS of 3.0% and MAE of 1.9, and an accuracy of 95% (91%-97%). CONCLUSION: Top-selling, direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters can accurately rule out hypoxaemia, but do not meet ISO-standards required for FDA-clearance.

Usefulness, pitfalls and interpretation of handheld single­lead electrocardiograms.

Single­lead electrocardiograms (1 L-ECGs) are increasingly used in (pre)clinical settings for the detection and monitoring of a range of rhythm and conduction disorders. In this short communication paper, we aim to provide an overview of the usefulness and potential pitfalls when implementing 1 L-ECGs into everyday clinical practice. Moreover, we provide recommendations for improving signal quality, as well as a systematic approach to the interpretation of 1 L-ECGs, which is somewhat different from standard 12­lead ECGs. Clinicians can use our illustrations and checklist as guidance when recording and interpreting 1 L-ECGs.

CHARGE-AF in a national routine primary care electronic health records database in the Netherlands: validation for 5-year risk of atrial fibrillation and implications for patient selection in atrial fibrillation screening.

AIMS: To validate a multivariable risk prediction model (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology model for atrial fibrillation (CHARGE-AF)) for 5-year risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in routinely collected primary care data and to assess CHARGE-AF's potential for automated, low-cost selection of patients at high risk for AF based on routine primary care data. METHODS: We included patients aged ≥40 years, free of AF and with complete CHARGE-AF variables at baseline, 1 January 2014, in a representative, nationwide routine primary care database in the Netherlands (Nivel-PCD). We validated CHARGE-AF for 5-year observed AF incidence using the C-statistic for discrimination, and calibration plot and stratified Kaplan-Meier plot for calibration. We compared CHARGE-AF with other predictors and assessed implications of using different CHARGE-AF cut-offs to select high-risk patients. RESULTS: Among 111 475 patients free of AF and with complete CHARGE-AF variables at baseline (17.2% of all patients aged ≥40 years and free of AF), mean age was 65.5 years, and 53% were female. Complete CHARGE-AF cases were older and had higher AF incidence and cardiovascular comorbidity rate than incomplete cases. There were 5264 (4.7%) new AF cases during 5-year follow-up among complete cases. CHARGE-AF's C-statistic for new AF was 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74). The calibration plot showed slight risk underestimation in low-risk deciles and overestimation of absolute AF risk in those with highest predicted risk. The Kaplan-Meier plot with categories <2.5%, 2.5%-5% and >5% predicted 5-year risk was highly accurate. CHARGE-AF outperformed CHA2DS2-VASc (Cardiac failure or dysfunction, Hypertension, Age >=75 [Doubled], Diabetes, Stroke [Doubled]-Vascular disease, Age 65-74, and Sex category [Female]) and age alone as predictors for AF. Dichotomisation at cut-offs of 2.5%, 5% and 10% baseline CHARGE-AF risk all showed merits for patient selection in AF screening efforts. CONCLUSION: In patients with complete baseline CHARGE-AF data through routine Dutch primary care, CHARGE-AF accurately assessed AF risk among older primary care patients, outperformed both CHA2DS2-VASc and age alone as predictors for AF and showed potential for automated, low-cost patient selection in AF screening.

Evaluation of general practitioners' single-lead electrocardiogram interpretation skills: a case-vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Handheld single-lead electrocardiograms (1L-ECG) present a welcome addition to the diagnostic arsenal of general practitioners (GPs). However, little is known about GPs' 1L-ECG interpretation skills, and thus its reliability in real-world practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs in diagnosing atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/Afl) based on 1L-ECGs, with and without the aid of automatic algorithm interpretation, as well as other relevant ECG abnormalities. METHODS: We invited 2239 Dutch GPs for an online case-vignette study. GPs were asked to interpret four 1L-ECGs, randomly drawn from a pool of 80 case-vignettes. These vignettes were obtained from a primary care study that used smartphone-operated 1L-ECG recordings using the AliveCor KardiaMobile. Interpretation of all 1L-ECGs by a panel of cardiologists was used as reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 457 (20.4%) GPs responded and interpreted a total of 1613 1L-ECGs. Sensitivity and specificity for AF/Afl (prevalence 13%) were 92.5% (95% CI: 82.5-97.0%) and 89.8% (95% CI: 85.5-92.9%), respectively. PPV and NPV for AF/Afl were 45.7% (95% CI: 22.4-70.9%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 97.1-99.5%), respectively. GP interpretation skills did not improve in case-vignettes where the outcome of automatic AF-detection algorithm was provided. In detecting any relevant ECG abnormality (prevalence 22%), sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 96.3% (95% CI: 92.8-98.2%), 68.8% (95% CI: 62.4-74.6%), 43.9% (95% CI: 27.7-61.5%) and 97.9% (95% CI: 94.9-99.1%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: GPs can safely rule out cardiac arrhythmias with 1L-ECGs. However, whenever an abnormality is suspected, confirmation by an expert-reader is warranted.

Opportunistic screening versus usual care for detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether opportunistic screening in primary care increases the detection of atrial fibrillation compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 47 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. PARTICIPANTS: In 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. INTERVENTIONS: Opportunistic 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 MEASURES: Difference in the detection rate of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation over one year in intention-to-screen versus usual care practices. RESULTS: Follow-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. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic 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 REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register No NL4776 (old NTR4914).

Rationale and design of a cohort study evaluating triage of acute chest pain in out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands (TRACE).

The aims of this study are (1) to evaluate the performance of current triage for chest pain; (2) to describe the case mix of patients undergoing triage for chest pain; and (3) to identify opportunities to improve performance of current Dutch triage system for chest pain. Chest pain is a common symptom, and identifying patients with chest pain that require urgent care can be quite challenging. Making the correct assessment is even harder during telephone triage. Temporal trends show that the referral threshold has lowered over time, resulting in overcrowding of first responders and emergency services. While various stakeholders advocate for a more efficient triage system, careful evaluation of the performance of the current triage in primary care is lacking. TRiage of Acute Chest pain Evaluation in primary care (TRACE) is a large cohort study designed to describe the current Dutch triage system for chest pain and subsequently evaluate triage performance in regard to clinical outcomes. The study consists of consecutive patients who contacted the out-of-hours primary care facility with chest pain in the region of Alkmaar, the Netherlands, in 2017, with follow-up for clinical outcomes out to August 2019. The primary outcome of interest is 'major event', which is defined as the occurrence of death from any cause, acute coronary syndrome, urgent coronary revascularization, or other high-risk diagnoses in which delay is inadmissible and hospitalization is necessary. We will evaluate the performance of the triage system by assessing the ability of the triage system to correctly classify patients regarding urgency (accuracy), the proportion of safe actions following triage (safety) as well as rightfully deployed ambulances (efficacy). TRACE is designed to describe the current Dutch triage system for chest pain in primary care and to subsequently evaluate triage performance in regard to clinical outcomes.

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.

Impact of Polypharmacy and P-Glycoprotein- and CYP3A4-Modulating Drugs on Safety and Efficacy of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

PURPOSE: To study whether polypharmacy or drug-drug interactions have differential effect on safety and efficacy in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to DOACs or warfarin stratified by the number of concomitant drugs. Outcomes included stroke or systemic embolism (SE), all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and Mantel-Haenszel random effects were applied. RESULTS: Two high-quality studies were eligible, including 32,465 participants who received apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin, with a median follow-up of 1.9 years. Of participants, 29% used < 5 drugs, 55% used 5-9 drugs, and 16% used ≥ 10 drugs. Drugs interacting with DOACs (P-glycoprotein/CYP3A4) were used by 6460 (20%) of patients. Patients with higher number of drugs (0-4 vs 5-9 vs ≥ 10) had higher rates of mortality (5.8%, 7.9%, 10.0%) and major bleeding (3.4%, 4.8%, 7.7%). Comparative efficacy or safety of DOACs versus warfarin was not affected by polypharmacy status or P-glycoprotein/CYP3A4 inhibitor use. However, the presence of polypharmacy (p = 0.001) or glycoprotein/CYP3A4-modulating drugs (p = 0.03) was correlated with increased risk of major bleeding when compared with warfarin. Overall, DOAC use was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE (RR, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.74-0.94), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.91; 95%CI, 0.84-0.98), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 0.51; 95%CI, 0.38-0.70) compared with warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs were more effective than warfarin, and at least as safe. Polypharmacy was associated with adverse outcomes and attenuated the advantage in risk of major bleeding among rivaroxaban users, particularly in the presence of P-glycoprotein/CYP3A4-modulating drugs.