Background: Accurate assessment of aerobic capacity is essential for performance monitoring in masters athletes, particularly in high-intensity team sports. The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and agreement of three indirect maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) protocols (Åstrand–Ryhming, YMCA, and Polar OwnIndex Fitness test) against the gold-standard cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in masters basketball players. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study included 50 male masters basketball players (aged 51–81 years, M = 64.3 ± 7.9). Validity was determined by comparing results from the three indirect protocols to direct VO₂max measurement via CPET. Agreement was assessed using Pearson correlations (r), systematic error, mean absolute error (MAE), and Bland–Altman limits of agreement. Results: The Åstrand–Ryhming test and YMCA tests showed the closest agreement with CPET (systematic error < 4%, MAE ≈ 17–18%, r > 0.50). The Polar OwnIndex test substantially overestimated VO₂max (mean error ≈ 30%, MAE = 32%). The Åstrand–Ryhming test at low workload yielded the strongest correlation (r = 0.75). Conclusions: The Åstrand–Ryhming and YMCA submaximal tests demonstrated acceptable validity and low systematic bias for estimating VO₂max in masters basketball players, positioning them as practical alternatives to CPET. Conversely, the Polar OwnIndex test showed poor agreement and clinically significant overestimation. These findings support the use of submaximal cycling protocols for fitness monitoring and tailored training prescription in this specific older athlete population. Future longitudinal research is warranted to confirm their ability to track fitness changes over time in this population.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) significantly impacts the clinical and financial burden of healthcare systems worldwide. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are considered a core element of patient-centered care. However, the integration of PROMs into AF clinical pathways remains limited. Objectives: In this study, we aimed to develop a policy-oriented framework for integrating PROMs into AF management, building on QoL assessment and the AF-CARE pathway. Methods: We compared the selected instruments (AFEQT, SF-36, EQ-5D, and AFSS) to examine how different QoL domains are represented. We then considered how the missing domains relate to routine care and healthcare delivery. On this basis, we constructed a conceptual framework linking PROM domains with clinical and policy decisions, as well as with diagnostic and follow-up strategies in AF. Results: Existing PROMs capture symptom burden reasonably well, but they do not fully reflect several domains that shape the daily experience of patients with AF, including cognition, sleep quality, sexual health, and economic burden. The proposed framework places PROMs within the AF-CARE components and illustrates how they can be used in routine practice—not only for long-term monitoring, but also to improve clinical decision-making, and better align with value-based healthcare strategies at both the clinical and system levels. It also outlines a practical approach to incorporating PROMs into everyday care and into broader health-system decision-making. Conclusions: Integrating PROMs into AF-CARE requires a system-level redesign rather than isolated tool implementation. Within the proposed framework, the question is no longer whether PROMs should be used in AF care, but how to integrate them in a way that meaningfully influences clinical decisions and patient outcomes.