Global research trends in postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a bibliometric and visual analytics study based on the Web of Science Core Collection

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) remains the most common complication following cardiac surgery, yet the global research landscape across the full spectrum of cardiac surgical procedures—including its intellectual structure, evolving thematic priorities, and relationship with clinical evidence—has not been comprehensively characterized. We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric and visual analysis study based solely on publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (1995–2025), encompassing 1910 publications on POAF after cardiac surgery. Data were analyzed using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the bibliometrix package of R to map publication trends, collaborative networks, keyword evolution, and citation patterns. Publications on POAF have increased steadily, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11%. The United States emerged as the central hub of the research network, leading in productivity (556 publications, 19,890 citations) and international collaboration. Keyword analysis revealed three distinct phases in research focus: an initial period (1995–2004) centered on coronary artery bypass grafting, mechanistic inflammation, and pharmacological prophylaxis with amiodarone and beta-blockers; a second phase (2005–2014) marked by expansion into vitamins, antioxidants, and omega-3 fatty acids, with interest in the latter two waning after negative trials; and a third phase (2015–2025) characterized by the emergence of non-pharmacological strategies, notably posterior pericardiotomy and autonomic modulation, as prominent research frontiers. This analysis maps the field’s evolutionary trajectory, with pharmacological prophylaxis representing a sustained research focus while highlighting a distinct shift toward non-pharmacological and neuromodulatory strategies in the published literature. We emphasize that bibliometric trends reflect research activity and attention, not clinical effectiveness or therapeutic superiority. These findings provide a structured overview of the research landscape and may help identify knowledge gaps, but should be interpreted with appropriate caution.