Adequate periprocedural anticoagulation is important to prevent complications like transient ischemic attack, stroke, severe esophageal injury, and pulmonary vein stenosis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy with interrupted anticoagulation therapy for patients with arrhythmias undergoing catheter ablation. The current meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Several online databases were searched, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, to search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome included thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding events and minor bleeding events. A total of eight RCTs were included in the current meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 3893 patients. No significant differences were reported in relation to thromboembolic events (RR: 2.39, 95% CI: 0.41-13.97, p-value: 0.33), major bleeding events (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.50-1.96, p-value: 0.98) and minor bleeding events (RR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.56-4.30, p-value: 0.40) between the two study groups. This meta-analysis did not find any conclusive evidence for the absence of any difference between the two strategies.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; interrupted anticoagulant; non valvular atrial fibrillation; thromboembolic events; uninterrupted anticoagulant.
Copyright © 2022, Jamil et al.