Macfarlane, Peter W.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly diagnosed early, close to its first occurrence due to: (i) increased public awareness with self-screening; (ii) health care initiatives including population screening and opportunistic case finding; and (iii) increased use and surveillance of implantable cardiac devices. At its onset, AF is often low burden, and cardiovascular co-morbidities may be absent or at an early stage. Thus, the management of recent-onset AF has become an issue of growing importance. Professional guidelines have traditionally focused on anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis, generally recommending a cautious approach to rhythm control, and priority has been given to rate control to alleviate symptoms. In recent guidelines, the importance of managing lifestyle and co-morbidities has increased. The AF-SCREEN collaboration proposes that a vigorous approach to active management of recent-onset AF may be warranted. This includes addressing co-morbidities and promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent the emergence or progression of AF and associated cardiovascular disease, as well as the initiation of active rhythm control ± anticoagulation to prevent AF-related morbidity and mortality, including stroke and heart failure (HF). Intuitively, intervention early after AF onset would be beneficial since lifestyle and co-morbidity management, plus rhythm control and anticoagulation, are important contributors to improved outcomes in patients with established AF, but robust evidence is lacking for recent-onset AF. There is a delicate balance between achieving favourable outcomes such as preventing strokes, HF and AF progression vs the complications and potential adverse effects of interventions. Given the serious long-term consequences, innovative approaches are necessary to determine the value and risks of initiating active therapy very early in the course of AF. More data are needed to guide the best management of recent-onset AF, bearing AF burden in mind. Long-term studies using large national databases linked to electronic medical records and rhythm monitoring devices offer excellent opportunities. Shorter-term studies focusing on reducing AF burden to slow AF progression and studies focusing on outcomes such as HF could be used in both randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies.

Background: ECG interpretation is crucial in medical practice, but professionals struggle with achieving and maintaining competency. Identifying proficiency gaps aids in designing educational interventions. Methods: Medical professionals from various disciplines interpreted 30 12-lead ECGs containing commonly taught urgent and non-urgent findings. Performance metrics evaluated were overall adjusted score (% of correctly identified findings using a point-value score based on clinical relevance), unadjusted score (% of correctly identified findings), interpretation time per ECG, and self-reported confidence (rated on an ordinal scale of 0 [not confident], 1 [somewhat confident], or 2 [confident]). Results: Among 1206 participants, there were 72 (6%) primary care physicians (PCPs), 146 (12%) cardiology fellows-in-training (FIT), 353 (29%) resident physicians, 182 (15%) medical students, 84 (7%) advanced practice providers (APPs), 120 (10%) nurses, 249 (21%) allied health professionals, 571 (47%) physicians, and 453 (38%) non-physicians. Participants had a mean adjusted score of 46.9% (± 15.9%), unadjusted score of 56.4% (± 17.2%), interpretation time of 142 seconds (± 67 seconds), and confidence of 0.83 (± 0.53) (Table 1) . Performance varied across groups; cardiology FIT had superior performance in all metrics. Physicians generally outperformed non-physicians, with higher overall adjusted score (52% vs. 43%; p<0.01), unadjusted score (62% vs. 52%; p<0.01), and confidence (0.91 vs. 0.80; p<0.01). Unadjusted score for PCPs was higher than nurses and APPs (58% vs. 47% and 51%; p<0.01) but lower than resident physicians (58% vs. 60%; p<0.01). Allied health professionals outperformed nurses and APPs and closely matched resident physicians and PCPs. Conclusions: Significant gaps in ECG interpretation proficiency exist, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, scalable, and accessible educational tools.