Continuing OAC after successful AF ablation does not significantly reduce stroke risk compared to cessation or aspirin, but may increase major bleeding.
Does continuing OAC reduce stroke risk compared to cessation or switching to aspirin in patients after successful AF ablation?
Continuing OAC after successful AF ablation does not significantly reduce stroke risk but may increase major bleeding compared to cessation or aspirin.
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.
Abomohsen et al. (2026) studied this question. Continuing OAC after successful AF ablation does not significantly reduce stroke risk compared to cessation or aspirin, but may increase major bleeding.