Stroke prevention following successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation remains a controversial topic. Oral anticoagulation is associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk in the general atrial fibrillation population but may be associated with an increased risk of major bleeding, and the benefit: risk ratio must be considered. Improvement in successful catheter ablation and widespread use of cardiac monitoring devices may allow for novel anticoagulation strategies in a subset of patients with atrial fibrillation, which may optimize stroke prevention while minimizing bleeding risk. In this review, we discuss stroke risk in atrial fibrillation and the effects of successful catheter ablation on thromboembolic risk. We also explore novel strategies for stroke prevention following successful catheter ablation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Episodes may stop spontaneously (paroxysmal AF); may terminate only via intervention (persistent AF); or may persist indefinitely (permanent AF) (see European and American guidelines, referenced below, for more precise definitions). Recently, there has been renewed interest in an approach to terminate AF acutely referred to as \'pill-in-the-pocket\' (PITP). The PITP is recognized in both the US and European guidelines as an effective option using an oral antiarrhythmic drug for acute conversion of acute/recent-onset AF. However, how PITP is currently used has not been systematically evaluated.
The recently published Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey included questions regarding current PITP usage, stratified by US vs. European countries surveyed, by representative countries within Europe, and by cardiologists vs. electrophysiologists. This manuscript presents the data from this planned sub-study. Our survey revealed that clinicians in both the USA and Europe consider PITP in about a quarter of their patients, mostly for recent-onset AF with minimal or no structural heart disease (guideline appropriate). However, significant deviations exist. See the Graphical abstract for a summary of the data.
Our findings highlight the frequent use of PITP and the need for further physician education about appropriate and optimal use of this strategy.

Guidelines recommend that initial trial of a \"pill-in-the-pocket\" (PIP) Class 1C antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) be performed in a monitored setting because of the potential for adverse reactions.
This study sought to characterize real-world, contemporary use of the PIP approach, including the setting of initiation and incidence of adverse events.
This retrospective cohort study included all patients at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania treated with a PIP approach for AF between 2007 and 2020.
A total of 273 patients (age 56 ± 13 years; 182 [67%] male; CHA2DS2VASc score 1.1 ± 1.2) took a first dose of PIP AAD. Flecainide was used in 151 (55%) and propafenone in 122 (45%). The first dose of PIP AAD was taken in a monitored setting in 167 (62%). Significant adverse events occurred in 7 patients (3%), 2 of whom had taken the dose in a monitored setting. Significant adverse events included unexplained syncope (1 of 7), symptomatic bradycardia/hypotension (4 of 7), and 1:1 atrial flutter (2 of 7). All occurred in patients taking 300 mg of flecainide (n = 4) or 600 mg of propafenone (n = 3). Electrical cardioversion was performed in 29 (11%) patients because of failure of the AAD to terminate AF. One patient required intravenous fluids and vasopressors for 2 hours because of persistent hypotension and bradycardia. Two patients required permanent pacemakers for bradycardia. The remaining patients required no intervention.
Our data support the current recommendation to initiate PIP AAD in a monitored setting because of rare significant adverse reactions that can require urgent intervention.

Symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cause of emergency department (ED) referrals. In case of hemodynamic stability, the choice to either perform early cardioversion (pharmacologic or electrical) or to prescribe rate-lowering drugs and differ any attempts to restore sinus rhythm (i.e., wait-and-see approach) has been widely debated. Results of the recent Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7-Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See (RACE 7 ACWAS) have been considered a strong argument in favor of the wait-and-see approach. In this debate, we discuss several issues that would support early cardioversion, ranging from patients\' satisfaction and costs to concerns about safety. Furthermore, the wait-and-see approach may translate into a missed opportunity to encourage widespread use of a \"pill-in-the-pocket\" home treatment: this underused option could allow rapid solving of many AF episodes, potentially avoiding future ED referrals. Our opinion is that a delayed cardioversion may introduce unneeded complications in the straightforward management of a common clinical problem. Therefore, early cardioversion should continue to be the preferred option because of its proven efficacy, safety and convenience.

Propafenone is a well-known Class Ic antiarrhythmic agent. It has the typical chemical structure of a beta-blocker, but human studies on its beta-blocking effects revealed conflicting results.
Twelve healthy males received single oral doses of 600 mg propafenone and placebo according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over protocol. Four hours following drug intake, heart rate and blood pressure were measured, and plasma concentrations of propafenone were determined at rest, during exercise and after recovery. At exercise, propafenone significantly decreased heart rate (-6%, P < 0.05), systolic blood pressure (-6%, P < 0.05), and the rate-pressure product (-11%, P < 0.05). Plasma concentrations of propafenone increased during exercise (+23%, P < 0.05) and decreased during recovery (-33%, P < 0.05).
Both effects on heart rate and blood pressure as well as the changes of plasma concentrations of propafenone during exercise represent two particular features of beta-blockers. Therefore, we conclude that propafenone is both a Class Ic and a Class II antiarrhythmic agent, and 600 mg propafenone, i.e. the dose recommended in current guidelines for cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, cause clinically significant beta-blockade. Thus, single oral doses of 600 mg propafenone appear also suitable for cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with structural heart disease since beta-blockers are explicitly indicated in the treatment of both coronary artery disease and heart failure.