Why the study?
What are the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation strategies to minimize thromboembolic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
What are the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation strategies to minimize thromboembolic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Strategic periprocedural anticoagulation, along with procedural techniques, is essential to balance thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks during atrial fibrillation ablation.
May guide periprocedural anticoagulation in AF ablation; leaves open optimal regimens for randomized trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ablation is a treatment option for selected patients with atrial fibrillation that is being used more frequently, increasing the importance of awareness of both its risks and benefits. This review discusses the thromboembolic and bleeding risks during ablation, strategies to minimize these risks and use of long-term oral anticoagulation post ablation. RECENT FINDINGS: Thromboembolic and bleeding risks imparted by atrial fibrillation ablation can be minimized by echocardiography, optimal intraprocedural anticoagulation, and use of irrigated catheters and access sheaths with constant heparinized saline flow. Additionally, a strategic approach to periprocedural anticoagulation that may include continuation of warfarin, bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or use of aspirin alone is essential in the balance of thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks. Novel anticoagulants (direct thrombin inhibitors or anti-Xa inhibitors) may add further options. SUMMARY: The use of atrial fibrillation ablation has increased over the past decade. Along with technique and technology advances that have improved the success of ablation, strides have been made in minimizing thromboembolic and bleeding risks and in the availability of a broader choice of anticoagulants. Research is ongoing to identify patients most suitable for ablation and to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of this treatment option.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verma et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: