Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Efficacy, Safety, and Net Clinical Benefit of Post-Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Anticoagulation

  • Mustafa Abomohsen
  • , Ahmed Elmorsy Mohamed
  • , Abdul Hakim Almakadma
  • , Azad Mojahedi
  • , Zeyad Kholeif
  • , Aya Elalfy
  • , Mahmoud Shams
  • , Ahmed Farid Gadelmawla
  • , Imad Samman Tahhan
  • , Mohab Elnashar
  • , Rana Rashwan
  • , Mohamed Elnady
  • , Moshe Gunsburg
  • Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center
  • Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas
  • Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida
  • Brigham and Women’s Hospital
  • Menoufia University
  • Wellington Regional Medical Center
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • NYC Health and Hospitals/Lincoln
  • Kafrelsheikh University

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: The optimal long-term antithrombotic strategy after apparently successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain, particularly in patients who meet conventional guideline thresholds for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Objectives: To compare continuation versus cessation strategies of long-term OAC after successful AF ablation and to quantify net clinical benefit (NCB) integrating thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase from inception through February 2026 for randomized and comparative observational studies evaluating long-term OAC continuation versus cessation (no OAC and/or switch to aspirin) after successful AF ablation. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 for randomized trials and a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Random-effects meta-analyses used a restricted maximum likelihood estimator with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. NCB was calculated as: thromboembolic event rate − (1.5 × major bleeding rate). Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria (four randomized trials and two observational cohorts). Stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) events were reported in six studies and were not significantly different between OAC continuation and cessation strategies (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.24–1.99; p = 0.49). Systemic embolism (three studies) did not differ between groups (p = 0.12). Major bleeding (five studies) was numerically higher with continued OAC but not statistically significant (OR 2.07; 95% CI 0.88–4.86; p = 0.09). In NCB analysis, continued OAC yielded more negative or near-neutral NCB values, whereas, the cessation strategies were less negative or marginally positive; the fixed-effect risk difference in NCB (continued OAC vs cessation) was +0.00067 (95% CI −0.00279 to +0.00413). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that after successful AF ablation, continuing OAC does not significantly reduce stroke risk compared to cessation or switching to aspirin, but it may increase major bleeding. While NCB trends favor cessation, the low absolute event rates and the risk of silent AF recurrence necessitate caution.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)590-601
Number of pages12
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume49
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2026

Keywords

  • ablation
  • anticoagulation
  • aspirin
  • atrial atrial fibrillation
  • continued DOAC
  • direct oral anticoagulants
  • net clinical benefit
  • therapy cessation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy, Safety, and Net Clinical Benefit of Post-Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Anticoagulation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this