Post-Catheter Ablation Long-Term Antithrombotic Strategies in Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is a widely used rhythm-control strategy, yet its role in reducing thromboembolic risk and enabling oral anticoagulation (OAC) discontinuation remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively synthesize and evaluate randomized controlled trial evidence supporting long-term antithrombotic strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating antithrombotic strategies after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. A frequentist network meta-analysis comparing reported treatment arms, along with a pooled incidence meta-analysis for outcomes of interest, was conducted. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials, including 3924 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Three trials compared long-term OAC continuation versus OAC discontinuation, and 1 compared OAC continuation with left atrial appendage occlusion after catheter ablation. No significant differences in stroke incidence were observed when comparing OAC or left atrial appendage occlusion with no antithrombotic therapy (incidence rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.02–33.85]; P =0.95; incidence rate ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.00–241.01]; P =0.94, respectively). Among patients who discontinued antithrombotic therapy without undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (n=1161), with 2864 cumulative person-years of follow-up, the pooled incidence of stroke was 0.23 events per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.02–2.43; I 2 =0%). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis reinforces that, across randomized data, the incidence of thromboembolic events in patients who discontinued OAC after successful ablation remained low. However, the evaluation of net clinical benefit is limited by the low number of events across all treatment arms, underscoring the need for larger studies with prolonged follow-up to further validate the safety of this strategy, particularly in higher-risk populations.