Mohamed, Ahmed Elmorsy

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.

ABSTRACT Background Pulmonary vein isolation is a standard therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel approach aiming to improve efficacy and safety over conventional thermal ablation (CTA) (radiofrequency and cryoballoon). This meta‐analysis evaluated outcomes of PFA versus thermal ablation in paroxysmal AF. Methods Electronic databases were searched through May 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared the efficacy and safety of PFA versus CTA. The primary outcome was AF recurrence. Summary estimates were conducted using random effects. Results A total of six studies, involving 1928 patients, were included. The incidence of AF recurrence was significantly lower among patients treated with PFA (risk ratio [RR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.85). PFA was associated with a lower incidence of any atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.61–0.99). The total procedure duration was significantly shorter with PFA (mean difference −21.46 min (95% CI: −26.04 to −16.88)), but there was no difference in fluoroscopy time. The rates of esophageal injury and phrenic nerve palsy were lower with PFA. However, the data were limited for these two outcomes, and a meta‐analysis was not conducted for them. There was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of stroke or pericardial tamponade. Conclusion Among patients with paroxysmal AF undergoing catheter ablation, PFA is associated with favorable outcomes, including lower recurrence and shorter procedure time compared to conventional ablation modalities.