Controversy: the blanking period after atrial fibrillation ablation is needed and should be maintained.

Abstract

The concept of a post-ablation 'blanking period' (typically 90 days) has long served as a clinical and regulatory buffer during which atrial arrhythmia recurrences are not considered indicative of procedural failure. This period was originally justified by transient electrophysiological instability due to oedema, inflammation, and autonomic fluctuations. However, recent data-particularly in the era of continuous rhythm monitoring and novel energy sources such as pulsed field ablation-have challenged the biological and prognostic neutrality of early recurrences. Several studies now suggest that arrhythmia episodes within the blanking period, especially beyond the first 30 days, may strongly predict long-term recurrence, thereby questioning the utility of maintaining a fixed observational window. This EP Europace Controversy article presents opposing viewpoints on the necessity of the blanking period in modern practice. Dr Stelios Tzeis argues in favour of preserving the blanking period, citing its role in minimizing unnecessary re-intervention and ensuring standardized trial endpoints. Conversely, Dr John Mandrola advocates for shortening or abandoning the blanking period, proposing a more individualized approach guided by arrhythmia timing, symptom burden, and ablation modality. The introduction, authored by Prof. Helmut Pürerfellner, sets the stage by reviewing the historical rationale, emerging evidence, and practical implications of this ongoing debate. As ablation techniques evolve and data accrue, reassessing the blanking period becomes essential. This Controversy aims to inform clinical practice, future trial design, and shared decision-making by juxtaposing two expert perspectives on a timely and consequential topic in atrial fibrillation management.