Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major challenge for the healthcare field. Pulmonary vein isolation is the most effective treatment for the maintenance of sinus rhythm. However, clinical endpoints for the procedure vary significantly among studies. There is no consensus on the definition of recurrence and no clear roadmap on how to deal with recurrences after a failed ablation. The purpose of this study was to perform a survey in order to show how clinicians currently approach this knowledge gap. An online survey, supported by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, was conducted between 1 April 2022 and 8 May 2022. An anonymous questionnaire was disseminated via social media and EHRA newsletters, for clinicians to complete. This consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions regarding rhythm monitoring, definitions of a successful ablation, clinical practices after a failed AF ablation, and the continuance of anticoagulation. A total of 107 replies were collected across Europe. Most respondents (82%) perform routine monitoring for AF recurrences after ablation, with 51% of them preferring a long-term monitoring strategy. Cost was reported to have an impact on the choice of monitoring strategy. Self-screening was recommended by most (71%) of the respondents. The combination of absence of symptoms and recorded AF was the definition of success for most (83%) of the respondents. Cessation of anticoagulation after ablation was an option mostly for patients with paroxysmal AF and a low CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. The majority of physicians perform routine monitoring after AF ablation. For most physicians, the combination of the absence of symptoms and electrocardiographic endpoints defines a successful result after AF ablation.

Background and Objectives: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an established rhythm control strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). In many healthcare systems, increasing demand and limited procedural capacity have resulted in prolonged waiting times. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the association between waiting time for PVI and AF progression. Secondary aims were to assess the relationship between waiting time and AF-related complications, healthcare utilization, and clinical factors associated with higher risk of progression. Materials and Methods: We performed a single-center observational cohort study of patients on the waiting list for PVI at Pauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital between 2016 and 2023. Results: A total of 341 patients completed structured ambulatory follow-up to assess the complication and progression rates of AF. The mean age was 64.8 ± 10.5 years, 50.9% were male, and the median waiting time was 37.2 months (IQR 15.0–61.3). AF progression occurred in 25.7% (n = 88) of patients, with longer waiting time independently associated with progression (OR, 1.017 per month; 95% CI, 1.006–1.028; p < 0.05). Electrical cardioversion during the waiting period was associated with a lower likelihood of progression (OR, 0.32; p = 0.029), and Class IC antiarrhythmic therapy was associated with reduced risk of AF progression (HR 0.78; p = 0.013). During follow-up, 45.2% of patients were hospitalized for AF paroxysms, 29.6% underwent electrical cardioversion, and 13.5% experienced complications including stroke and heart failure decompensation. Left atrial volume index and left ventricular ejection fraction were inversely correlated (ρ = −0.355, p < 0.05), but neither was associated with waiting time. Conclusions: Longer waiting times for PVI are associated with AF progression and substantial interim healthcare utilization due to complications. Strategies to prioritize higher-risk patients may help prevent disease progression and reduce complication burden.