Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) partner site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 21;12(6):e059156. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059156.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening may increase early detection and reduce complications of AF. European, Australian and World Heart Federation guidelines recommend opportunistic screening, despite a current lack of clear evidence supporting a net benefit for systematic screening. Where screening is implemented, the most appropriate approaches are unknown. We explored the views of European stakeholders about opportunities and challenges of implementing four AF screening scenarios.
Telephone-based semi-structured interviews with results reported using Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines. Data were thematically analysed using the framework approach.
AF screening stakeholders in 11 European countries.
Healthcare professionals and regulators (n=24) potentially involved in AF screening implementation.
Four AF screening scenarios: single time point opportunistic, opportunistic prolonged, systematic single time point/prolonged and patient-led screening.
Stakeholder views about the challenges and feasibility of implementing the screening scenarios in the respective national/regional healthcare system.
Three themes developed. (1) Current screening approaches: there are no national AF screening programmes, with most AF detected in symptomatic patients. Patient-led screening exists via personal devices, creating screening inequity. (2) Feasibility of screening: single time point opportunistic screening in primary care using single-lead ECG devices was considered the most feasible. Software algorithms may aid identification of suitable patients and telehealth services have potential to support diagnosis. (3) Implementation requirements: sufficient evidence of benefit is required. National screening processes are required due to different payment mechanisms and health service regulations. Concerns about data security, and inclusivity for those without primary care access or personal devices must be addressed.
There is an overall awareness of AF screening. Opportunistic screening appears the most feasible across Europe. Challenges are health inequalities, identification of best target groups for screening, streamlined processes, the need for evidence of benefit and a tailored approach adapted to national realities.
心房颤动(AF)筛查可能会增加早期发现并减少 AF 的并发症。欧洲、澳大利亚和世界心脏联合会的指南建议进行机会性筛查,尽管目前缺乏明确证据支持系统筛查有净收益。在进行筛查的地方,最适当的方法尚不清楚。我们探讨了欧洲利益相关者对实施四种 AF 筛查方案的机会和挑战的看法。
使用 Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research 指南报告结果的基于电话的半结构化访谈。使用框架方法对数据进行主题分析。
11 个欧洲国家的 AF 筛查利益相关者。
可能参与 AF 筛查实施的医疗保健专业人员和监管机构(n=24)。
四种 AF 筛查方案:单次机会性、机会性延长、系统单次/延长和患者主导的筛查。
利益相关者对在各自国家/地区医疗保健系统中实施筛查方案的挑战和可行性的看法。
三个主题发展起来。(1)当前的筛查方法:没有国家 AF 筛查计划,大多数 AF 是在有症状的患者中发现的。通过个人设备进行患者主导的筛查,造成筛查不公平。(2)筛查的可行性:在初级保健中使用单导联 ECG 设备进行单次机会性筛查被认为是最可行的。软件算法可能有助于识别合适的患者,远程医疗服务具有支持诊断的潜力。(3)实施要求:需要有足够的获益证据。由于不同的支付机制和卫生服务法规,需要国家筛查流程。必须解决数据安全问题以及没有初级保健服务或个人设备的人群的包容性问题。
人们普遍意识到 AF 筛查。在整个欧洲,机会性筛查似乎是最可行的。挑战包括健康不平等、确定最佳筛查目标人群、简化流程、获益证据的需求以及适应国家现实的定制方法。