ArticleKorean circulation journal2026
One Versus Two Months Anticoagulation After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Who Were Not Indicated for Long-Term OAC: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (The REDUCIBLE Trial).
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03573037 (Duration of Anticoagulation Therapy Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation; Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Duration of Anticoagulation Therapy Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation; Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Redefining Post-Ablation Anticoagulation in Low-Risk Patients: Are Two Months Still Necessary?Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEven low-risk atrial fibrillation (AF) patients usually continue anticoagulant therapy for several months after the procedure. However, there is no solid evidence supporting this practice. The REDUCIBLE trial is designed to compare the outcomes of conventional 2- versus 1-month oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy following successful catheter ablation (CA) in men with a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≤1 and women with ≤2, where long-term OAC is not recommended.
methodsIn this pilot study, patients undergoing CA for drug-refractory paroxysmal AF were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group received OAC for 1 month, whereas the other received it for 2 months. The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism within 1 year after ablation.
resultsA total of 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to 2 groups. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The AF recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was similar (76.9% vs. 77.7%, p=0.98). During the blanking period, AF RFS was also similar (92.5% vs. 92.9%, p=0.98). No ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occurred in either group during 1-year follow-up. One patient in the 1-month group experienced a minor bleeding event when anticoagulants were not taken (7 months after ablation).
conclusionsThis study found that a single month of OAC post-ablation did not significantly elevate the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in low-risk patients. Nonetheless, a larger sample size would be necessary to achieve the statistical power for definitive conclusions. Future larger prospective clinical trials are needed to address this question comprehensively.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03573037.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.