Abomohsen, Mustafa

ABSTRACT Background In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and permanent pacing are often pursued when rhythm control is not pursued. Biventricular pacing (BiVP) has demonstrated benefits over right ventricular pacing, while conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative. However, evidence directly comparing CSP with BiVP in this high‐risk population remains inconsistent. Objective To compare CSP versus BiVP in patients with AF and HFrEF undergoing AVNA, focusing on cardiac function, clinical outcomes, and procedural metrics. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through February 2026 for studies comparing CSP and BiVP in adults with AF and HFrEF undergoing AVNA. Outcomes included all‐cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, pacing threshold, procedure duration, and fluoroscopy duration. A random‐effects model was used to pool mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Six studies (one randomized crossover trial and five observational studies; N = 766 patients: CSP = 356, BiVP = 410) were included. All‐cause mortality was significantly reduced in favor of CSP (RR 0.64 [CI: 0.44 to 0.94], p = 0.02, I 2 = 0%). There was also a trend towards lower HFH, but it marginally missed statistical significance (RR 0.77 [CI: 0.58 to 1.03], p = 0.08; I 2 = 0%). Additionally, CSP decreased NYHA class (MD ‐0.64 [CI: −1.18 to −0.10], p = 0.02; I 2 = 85%) and significantly reduced QRS duration (MD −33.56 ms [CI: −52.36 to −14.76], p = 0.0005; I 2 = 97%). LVEF improvement did not significantly differ between groups (MD 4.51% [95% CI: −1.50 to 10.52], p = 0.14; I 2 = 98%). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy times did not show statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD −11.54 min [CI: −50.05 to 26.97], p = 0.56, I 2 = 96%), and (MD −5.75 min [CI: −13.13 to 1.63], p = 0.13, I 2 = 88%), respectively. Overall pacing thresholds did not significantly differ between CSP and BiVP; however, modality‐specific subgroup analysis showed comparable thresholds between HBP and BiVP, whereas LBBP was associated with significantly lower pacing thresholds than BiVP. Conclusions Among patients with AF and HFrEF undergoing AVNA, CSP may offer symptomatic and electrocardiographic advantages over BiVP, with a possible signal toward improved major clinical outcomes that requires confirmation in larger randomized studies.

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.