This network meta-analysis was performed to rank the safety and efficacy of periprocedural anticoagulant strategies in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing anticoagulant regimens in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation up to July 1, 2021. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were thromboembolic and major bleeding events, respectively, and the net clinical benefit was investigated as the primary-outcome composite. Seventeen studies were included (n = 6950). The mean age ranged from 59 to 70 years; 74% of patients were men and 55% had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Compared with the uninterrupted vitamin-K antagonist strategy, the odds ratios for the composite of primary safety and efficacy outcomes were 0.61 (95%CI: 0.31-1.17) with uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants, 0.63 (95%CI: 0.26-1.54) with interrupted direct oral anticoagulants, and 8.02 (95%CI: 2.35-27.45) with interrupted vitamin-K antagonists. Uninterrupted dabigatran significantly reduced the risk of the composite of primary safety and efficacy outcomes (odds ratio, 0.21; 95%CI, 0.08-0.55). Uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants are preferred alternatives to uninterrupted vitamin-K antagonists. Interrupted direct oral anticoagulants may be feasible as alternatives. Our results support the use of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants as the optimal periprocedural anticoagulant strategy for patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation ablation; direct oral anticoagulant; network meta-analysis; periprocedural anticoagulant management; vitamin-K antagonist.