Evidence Hub

Effect of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists on Post-Ablation Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence: A Meta‑Analysis

Shubietah A, Elgendy MS, Awashra A, Murad MR, Alqudah M, Gowaily I, Mohamed AA, Emara A et al.

Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2026

695 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Among patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), it remains uncertain whether peri- or post-ablation use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduces AF recurrence.

Objectives: We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing GLP-1 RA therapy versus no GLP-1 RA use on AF recurrence following ablation.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for adult randomized and observational studies. Random-effects models generated risk ratios (RRs), and heterogeneity was assessed via I2. Time-to-event outcomes were synthesized using reconstructed individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with four contributing data for Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction and five included in the hazard ratio (HR) meta-analysis. Across four studies (n = 695; GLP-1 RA = 295; control = 400), pooled Kaplan-Meier curves showed a lower risk of AF recurrence with GLP-1 RA therapy (HR 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.72), with a restricted mean survival time (RMST) advantage of 1.02 months. A random-effects meta-analysis of five studies confirmed this benefit (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.61-0.99; I2 = 75%). Pairwise analyses at 12 months demonstrated fewer AF recurrences with GLP-1 RAs (28.6% vs. 32.9%; RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.76-0.90; I2 = 46.9%).

Conclusion: GLP-1 RA therapy was associated with reduced AF recurrence…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 695 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free