Abstract / Summary
The optimal duration of oral anticoagulation (OAC) after successful catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. Current guidelines recommend indefinite OAC based on stroke risk profiles, but long-term therapy adherence is suboptimal due to bleeding concerns. Recent randomized trials—ALONE-AF and OCEAN—provide critical insights into this debate. The ALONE-AF trial demonstrated that discontinuing OAC in patients without arrhythmia recurrence ≥1 year post-ablation (mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 2.1) significantly reduced major bleeding without increasing thromboembolic risk. However, the positive composite endpoint was predominantly driven by bleeding reduction, and the stroke comparison alone was underpowered. Similarly, the OCEAN trial showed no additional benefit of rivaroxaban over aspirin in stroke prevention among patients with successful ablation, while highlighting higher bleeding risks with anticoagulation. Importantly, the observed event rate in OCEAN was only ≈0.66 per 100 patient-years—far below the anticipated rate—yielding confidence intervals too wide to conclusively establish thromboembolic safety. These findings support individualized OAC management, particularly for patients with low-to-intermediate stroke risk (CHA₂DS₂-VASc 2–4) and no recurrence. Nevertheless, the persistently low event rates across trials, including OPTION (stroke rate ≈1.2–1.3% despite mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc of 3.5), suggest that post-ablation thromboembolic risk may have been overestimated, and traditional risk scores may no longer accurately stratify risk in this population. Emerging technologies like pulsed‑field ablation (PFA) may offer the potential to shorten OAC duration, but current evidence is derived almost entirely from thermal‑ablation cohorts and limited to small, underpowered PFA studies. Future studies should focus on high-risk subgroups and novel ablation strategies to refine personalized antithrombotic therapy.