Key result
Opportunistic AF screening boosts invited participation ~33% over systematic screening, but yields lower population reach.
Why the study?
Population-based screening for AF should be considered in elderly individuals, but participation in systematic screening programmes is often suboptimal.
Does opportunistic screening improve participation rate and population reach compared to systematic screening for atrial fibrillation in elderly individuals?
RCT (n=2,916)
Open-label
Cluster-randomized
Yes
Does opportunistic screening improve participation rate and population reach compared to systematic screening for atrial fibrillation in elderly individuals?
Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care yields higher individual participation but lower overall population reach compared to systematic mailed invitations due to implementation barriers.
Opportunistic screening boosts invitee participation yet lowers overall reach in elderly AF screening; extends RCT comparisons of primary care strategies.
AIMS: Population-based screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) should be considered in elderly individuals to enable AF detection. However, participation in systematic screening programmes is often suboptimal. STROKESTOP III evaluated whether opportunistic screening could improve participation compared with systematic screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: STROKESTOP III is a cluster-randomized trial including individuals aged 75-76 years from 16 primary care centres in Region Värmland, Sweden. Centres were randomized to systematic screening, using mailed invitations, or opportunistic screening, using invitations during visits.In the systematic arm, 1312 individuals were eligible and invited, of whom 607 participated (46.3%). In the opportunistic arm, 1390 individuals attended participating primary care centres and were potentially eligible for invitation. However, 641 individuals (46.1%) were not assessed for eligibility. Among the 749 assessed individuals, 609 were eligible and 374 participated.Participation among invited eligible individuals was significantly higher with opportunistic than systematic screening (374/609, 61.4% vs. 607/1,312, 46.3%; P < 0.005). However, overall reach was lower in the opportunistic arm because of incomplete assessment for invitation (374/1,479, 25.3% vs. 607/1,437, 42.2%; P < 0.005). Participants in the opportunistic arm had a higher cardiovascular risk burden, including more hypertension, diabetes, and a higher CHA2DS2-VASc-score (3.99 vs. 3.60; P < 0.005). Exclusion rates were higher (18.7% vs. 8.7%; P < 0.005), mainly due to previously diagnosed AF and cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Opportunistic screening increased participation among invited individuals and identified a higher-risk population, but its overall population reach was limited by incomplete eligibility assessment. Combining opportunistic and systematic strategies may optimize reach and participation in AF screening programmes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=2,916). Opportunistic screening vs. Systematic screening was evaluated on Participation rate among invited eligible individuals (p=<0.005). Opportunistic screening significantly increased participation among invited eligible individuals compared to systematic screening (61.4% vs. 46.3%), but resulted in lower overall population reach.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: