@ltb7 I was on the same meds after my ablation (same doses, I think), but I was on those meds before my ablation and they had controlled my afib for several years, ...until they didn't. My cardiologist kept me on those meds for 3 months, then kept me on them because I was going to Nepal for 2 months and he did not want me to have any problems far from any medical help. When I returned, he took me off the meds.
The period after my ablation was erratic with intermittent afib, fairly frequently for the first month, then it rapidly calmed down. I didn't have any afib after the second month. What my cardiologist told me was, "you are along for the ride."
So, hang in there, hope you start feeling better soon.
I never had any adverse reactions to meds.

@ltb7 They may even encourage AF because they put their own demands on the heart that a perfectly decent ablation might have put behind it. All I was left on was metoprolol and a DOAC, and I think the metoprolol might have been a mistake. My heart didn't go six days post ablation before it went berserk and I had to cease metopolol cold and go on amiodarone. I had been on an increasing dose since March, four months previously.

I'm not expert in this stuff, so I defer to those with the learning and experience. But ya gotta wonder sometimes...

@ltb7 That is my understanding as well, but some drugs, like amiodarone, have high residual levels for weeks and even months after ceasing to take them. This suppressive impact on underlying arrhythmia might act as a confound to the Holter assessment that ablatees have after the blanking period has ended. If anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) like amiodarone, or Multaq, or Flecainide, or even propafenone, are carrying the water for the heart, and the ablation hasn't been completed properly, what will the Holter tell us? It'll say the heart shows no ectopy or AF, so the ablation must have worked. Not so! The AAD is what is (still) working.

I caution that I am just a patient, although one who has done a lot of reading and who has had two ablations. Each EP has their protocol, and each patient demands a considered and unique approach to treatment. The literature I was given upon release from the cath lab says emphatically to not be dismayed if some minor AF or ectopy happens...it's common, even to be expected. But the research I have read, personally, shows that ectopy in the first five weeks is much better than ectopy that develops later in the blanking period, and of course beyond the Holter and any time in the next 12 months (twelve months free of the treated arrhythmia - a 'successful' ablation). So, the Holter, and the wearing patient, need to know if the ablation has succeeded. This means anything that might alter the heart's performance, especially suppressing arrhythmia, is going to confound the Holter assessment needlessly. To me, it should have been stopped weeks earlier. If prolonged and aggressive ectopy happens during the blanking period, and beyond, the patient can always go back on treatment...just don't expect the Holter to yield a veridical assessment.

My opinion...