Risk-Guided Atrial Fibrillation Screening With Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Electrocardiogram Models: A VITAL-AF Trial Analysis
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Patients aged ≥65 years without prevalent atrial fibrillation treated at 16 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital (n=16,937 with complete data) |
| I — Intervention | Risk-guided atrial fibrillation screening using single-lead ECG in practices randomized to screening, with risk stratification using validated models (CHARGE-AF, ECG-AI, CH-AI) |
| C — Comparator | Standard care (control practices without systematic AF screening) |
| O — Outcomes | Primary: 2-year incident atrial fibrillation diagnosis rate across risk deciles. Secondary: discrimination performance (AUROC, average precision), number-needed-to-screen |
Bottom Line
This cluster-randomized trial analysis demonstrates that risk-guided AF screening using AI-enhanced ECG models can improve screening efficiency compared to age-based approaches. Among 16,937 patients ≥65 years, systematic screening was only effective in the highest risk decile (top 10%) identified by combined clinical and ECG-AI models, with a number-needed-to-screen of 43 per year. The CH-AI model showed superior discrimination (AUROC 0.788) compared to clinical factors alone. However, this represents a trade-off between screening efficiency and population coverage, as 90% of the eligible population would not be screened under this approach. The study lacks data on downstream outcomes like stroke prevention and cost-effectiveness. While promising for targeting high-risk individuals, clinicians should consider that this approach may miss AF cases in lower-risk patients who would benefit from anticoagulation. Further research is needed to determine optimal screening strategies balancing efficiency, equity, and clinical outcomes.
Key Findings
P Value: P < 0.05 for top decile comparison
Effect Size: Screening effect observed only in top CH-AI risk decile: 2.32/100 person-years difference (10.07 vs 7.76/100 person-years)
Primary Outcome: 2-year incident AF diagnosis rate difference between screening and control groups across risk deciles
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Number-needed-to-screen: 43 per year in highest risk decile
Confidence Interval: 95% CI: 0.01-4.63 per 100 person-years
Clinical Application
Requires access to 12-lead ECG data for risk stratification and single-lead ECG devices for screening. AI models need validation in local populations Relevant to Australian primary care given similar healthcare delivery models. Would need TGA approval for AI-ECG devices. Could integrate with existing cardiovascular risk assessment programs and PBS-subsidised anticoagulation pathways Adults aged ≥65 years in primary care settings, particularly those at high predicted AF risk based on clinical factors and ECG features
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) may lead to earlier detection and initiation of preventive measures. Current AF screening approaches using a guideline age-based threshold of ≥65 years have shown limited yield. OBJECTIVES: In an AF screening trial, we assessed whether the screening effect was larger among individuals at elevated AF risk using validated clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG)-based artificial intelligence (AI) risk models. METHODS: VITAL-AF was a cluster-randomized trial of patients aged ≥65 years treated at 1 of 16 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients randomized to a screening practice were screened using a single-lead ECG. Among VITAL-AF participants without prevalent AF with at least one 12-lead ECG within 3 years before enrollment, we estimated AF risk using 3 validated models derived outside of VITAL-AF: the Cohorts of Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology-AF (CHARGE-AF) clinical score, an AI-based model using a 12-lead ECG alone (ECG-AI), and a model combining ECG-AI and CHARGE-AF (CH-AI). Two-year incident AF discrimination was assessed by the time-dependent area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and average precision. AF screening effect was defined as the difference in 2-year incident AF diagnosis rate (per 100 person-years) in screening vs control across AF risk deciles. RESULTS: Of 30,630 VITAL-AF participants without prevalent AF, 16,937 had pretrial ECG and clinical data. Each score discriminated 2-year AF risk according to AUROC (CHARGE-AF: 0.711 [95% CI: 0.671-0.749]; ECG-AI: 0.784 [95% CI: 0.743-0.819]; CH-AI: 0.788 [95% CI: 0.754-0.824]) and average precision (0.0952 [95% CI: 0.0836-0.112]; 0.132 [95% CI: 0.113-0.157]; 0.133 [95% CI: 0.117-0.159]). An AF screening effect was observed in the top decile of CH-AI (AF diagnosis rate in screening 10.07/100 person-years [95% 8.28-11.87] vs 7.76 [95% 6.30-9.21] in control, P < 0.05), corresponding to a difference in AF diagnosis rate of 2.32/100 person-years (95% CI: 0.01-4.63) and number-needed-to-screen of 43 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECG-based AI and clinical factors identified individuals at particularly high risk for AF who may benefit from screening. Findings suggest a trade-off between increasing AF screening efficiency and decreasing population coverage (ie, restriction of the screening pool). Future studies are needed to determine whether a risk-based approach is optimal or whether consideration of additional clinical- and systems-level factors (eg, access, health care system engagement) can further refine AF screening strategies. (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Among Older Patients in Primary Care Clinics [VITAL-AF]; NCT03515057).
References
- 1.Vedage, N. A., Friedman, S. F., Chang, Y., Borowsky, L. H., Shah, S. J., McManus, D. D., Atlas, S. J., Singer, D. E., Lubitz, S. A., Maddah, M., Ellinor, P. T., & Khurshid, S. (2026). Risk-guided atrial fibrillation screening with artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram models: A VITAL-AF trial analysis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.087
Related Research
Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
From data to diagnosis: A comprehensive review of machine learning-driven wearable sensors in healthcare.
2 Aug 2026
Ultrasound in medicine & biology
A Systematic Review: The Application of Attention Mechanisms in Medical Ultrasound Image Processing
2 Aug 2026
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Explainable machine learning in healthcare: methods, interpretation, and applications for clinical research
2 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service