ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Reassessing the need for long-term oral anticoagulation following successful atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe decision to continue or discontinue oral anticoagulation (OAC) after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) requires balancing thromboembolic and bleeding risks, and the need for long-term OAC after a successful procedure remains unclear. Thus, we aim to evaluate the safety of discontinuing OAC compared with continuation after apparently successful AF ablation.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trial and cohort studies comparing OAC discontinuation with continuation. Eligible studies required no evidence of AF recurrence before group allocation. A random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThirteen studies encompassing 249,452 patients were included. No difference was observed between groups for thromboembolic events (RR 0.932; 95% CI 0.624 to 1.393; GRADE: very low quality of evidence), nor when stratifying for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (RR 1.289; 95% CI 0.673 to 2.469) or < 2 (RR 0.786; 95% CI 0.353 to 1.751). For major bleeding, discontinuing OAC was associated with a significant reduction in events (RR 0.332; 95% CI 0.167 to 0.659; GRADE: low quality of evidence). Finally, for all-cause mortality, no difference between groups was observed (HR 0.977; 95% CI 0.889 to 1.073; GRADE: very low quality of evidence).
conclusionDiscontinuing OAC after successful AF ablation may reduce the risk of major bleeding while not increasing the risk of thromboembolism. However, further studies with proper designs are needed to confirm these associations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268559What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.