Schnabel, Renate B.

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.

Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and is estimated to be present in >70% of AF patients. This Frontiers Review was prepared by 29 expert members of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration to summarize existing evidence and knowledge gaps on links between hypertension, AF, and their cardiovascular sequelae; simultaneous screening for hypertension and AF; and the prevention of AF through antihypertensive therapy. Hypertension and AF are inextricably connected. Both are easily diagnosed, often silent, and frequently treated inadequately. Together, they additively increase the risk of ischemic stroke, heart failure, and many types of dementia, resulting in greater all-cause mortality, considerable disease burden, and increased health care expenditures. Automated upper arm cuff blood pressure devices with implemented technology can be used to simultaneously detect both hypertension and AF. However, positive screening for AF with an oscillometric blood pressure monitor still requires ECG confirmation. The current evidence suggests that high-risk individuals aged ≥65 years or with treatment-resistant hypertension could benefit from AF screening. Since antihypertensive therapy effectively lowers AF risk, particularly in individuals with left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension should be the key target for AF prediction and prevention rather than merely a comorbidity of AF. Nevertheless, several important gaps in knowledge need to be filled over the next years, including the ideal method and selection of patients for simultaneous screening of hypertension and AF and the optimal antihypertensive drug class and blood pressure targets for AF prevention.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a globally prevalent cardiac arrhythmia with significant genetic underpinnings, as highlighted by recent large-scale genetic studies. A prominent clinical and genetic overlap exists between AF, heritable ventricular cardiomyopathies, and arrhythmia syndromes, underlining the potential of AF as an early indicator of severe ventricular disease in younger individuals. Indeed, several recent studies have demonstrated meaningful yields of rare pathogenic variants among early-onset AF patients (∼4%–11%), most notably for cardiomyopathy genes in which rare variants are considered clinically actionable. Genetic testing thus presents a promising opportunity to identify monogenetic defects linked to AF and inherited cardiac conditions, such as cardiomyopathy, and may contribute to prognosis and management in early-onset AF patients. A first step towards recognizing this monogenic contribution was taken with the Class IIb recommendation for genetic testing in AF patients aged 45 years or younger by the 2023 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for AF. By identifying pathogenic genetic variants known to underlie inherited cardiomyopathies and arrhythmia syndromes, a personalized care pathway can be developed, encompassing more tailored screening, cascade testing, and potentially genotype-informed prognosis and preventive measures. However, this can only be ensured by frameworks that are developed and supported by all stakeholders. Ambiguity in test results such as variants of uncertain significance remain a major challenge and as many as ∼60% of people with early-onset AF might carry such variants. Patient education (including pretest counselling), training of genetic teams, selection of high-confidence genes, and careful reporting are strategies to mitigate this. Further challenges to implementation include financial barriers, insurability issues, workforce limitations, and the need for standardized definitions in a fast-moving field. Moreover, the prevailing genetic evidence largely rests on European descent populations, underscoring the need for diverse research cohorts and international collaboration. Embracing these challenges and the potential of genetic testing may improve AF care. However, further research—mechanistic, translational, and clinical—is urgently needed.

Moritz F Sinner, 2012 Finalist and Presenting Author

Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.

Background Tools for the prediction of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) may identify high‐risk individuals more likely to benefit from preventive interventions and serve as a benchmark to test novel putative risk factors. Methods and Results Individual‐level data from 3 large cohorts in the U nited S tates (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ ARIC ] study, the Cardiovascular Health Study [ CHS ], and the Framingham Heart Study [ FHS ]), including 18 556 men and women aged 46 to 94 years (19% A frican A mericans, 81% whites) were pooled to derive predictive models for AF using clinical variables. Validation of the derived models was performed in 7672 participants from the Age, Gene and Environment—Reykjavik study ( AGES ) and the Rotterdam Study ( RS ). The analysis included 1186 incident AF cases in the derivation cohorts and 585 in the validation cohorts. A simple 5‐year predictive model including the variables age, race, height, weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, current smoking, use of antihypertensive medication, diabetes, and history of myocardial infarction and heart failure had good discrimination (C‐statistic, 0.765; 95% CI , 0.748 to 0.781). Addition of variables from the electrocardiogram did not improve the overall model discrimination (C‐statistic, 0.767; 95% CI , 0.750 to 0.783; categorical net reclassification improvement, −0.0032; 95% CI , −0.0178 to 0.0113). In the validation cohorts, discrimination was acceptable ( AGES C‐statistic, 0.664; 95% CI , 0.632 to 0.697 and RS C‐statistic, 0.705; 95% CI , 0.664 to 0.747) and calibration was adequate. Conclusion A risk model including variables readily available in primary care settings adequately predicted AF in diverse populations from the U nited S tates and E urope.