@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...