Key result
Long-term continuous monitoring increases AF detection yield to ~30% compared to single-timepoint screening.
Why the study?
Do different screening methodologies and patient characteristics affect the yield of atrial fibrillation detection in a screened population?
Meta-Analysis (n=34,165)
Yes
Do different screening methodologies and patient characteristics affect the yield of atrial fibrillation detection in a screened population?
More intensive atrial fibrillation screening methods and specific patient characteristics (advanced age, male sex, heart failure) are associated with a significantly higher diagnostic yield.
AF screening yield rises with monitoring intensity; may inform targeted strategies but leaves outcome benefits open.
Backgrounds and Aims Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening may reduce adverse outcomes through early initiation of preventive treatment. However, more data are warranted to inform the yield of different screening strategies. This study aimed to evaluate how patient characteristics and screening methodologies influence screening yield. Methods We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of 12 European and North American study cohorts, by using generalized linear mixed models with random intercept at study level. Results In this meta-analysis of 34,165 participants screened for AF (age 73.4 ± 7.5 years and 53.5% female), the screening yield increased with more intensive approaches, ranging from 0.83% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-2.87] in single-timepoint screening, to 5.06% [95% CI: 3.55-7.17] in intermittent (i.e. repeated single-timepoint) screening, 4.81% [95% CI: 3.79-6.08] in short-term continuous monitoring (≤30 days), and up to 30.39% [95% CI: 28.06-32.84] in long-term continuous monitoring (>30 days). Advanced age, male sex, hypertension, and heart failure (HF) were associated with detection. Significant interactions were observed between screening approach and age, sex, HF, CHADS2, and NT-proBNP. These risk factors had a stronger influence on AF detection with single-timepoint screening, compared with more intensive methods. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, AF screening yield varied substantially by patient characteristics and screening approach. Advanced age, male sex, and HF were independently associated with greater AF detection, particularly in those having single-timepoint screening. Our findings support tailoring the screening approach to the individual target population in clinical practice. Further studies to assess clinical outcomes following screening are needed and underway.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xing et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=34,165). Atrial fibrillation screening was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation detection (screening yield). Atrial fibrillation screening yield increased with monitoring intensity, ranging from 0.83% for single-timepoint screening to 30.39% for long-term continuous monitoring (>30 days).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: