Myocardial Function Assessment After Cardioversion in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Background/Objectives: Persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with complex structural, electrical, and functional myocardial remodeling that contributes to impaired cardiac performance, symptom burden, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Although restoration of sinus rhythm through electrical cardioversion remains a cornerstone of rhythm-control therapy, treatment success is traditionally defined by rhythm maintenance and recurrence rates, while myocardial functional recovery receives substantially less attention. This review aims to summarize current evidence regarding myocardial dysfunction in persistent AF, evaluate available approaches for assessing myocardial recovery after cardioversion, and explore future directions for function-guided rhythm-control strategies. Methods: A narrative review of contemporary literature was performed, focusing on studies published in major cardiovascular journals and current international guidelines. Evidence regarding myocardial remodeling, reverse remodeling after restoration of sinus rhythm, echocardiographic assessment, myocardial strain imaging, biomarker dynamics, and post-cardioversion management strategies was synthesized and critically evaluated. Results: Persistent AF induces multidimensional myocardial dysfunction through tachycardia-mediated injury, structural remodeling, neurohormonal activation, inflammation, and fibrosis. Emerging evidence suggests that restoration of sinus rhythm may initiate a process of reverse remodeling characterized by improvements in left ventricular systolic function, global longitudinal strain, atrial mechanical performance, and biomarker profiles. Advanced echocardiographic techniques and serial biomarker assessment provide valuable opportunities to quantify myocardial recovery beyond conventional rhythm-based endpoints. However, current clinical practice and guideline-directed management remain predominantly focused on rhythm outcomes, while functional recovery is not routinely incorporated into therapeutic decision-making. Based on available evidence, a conceptual framework termed the “Post-Cardioversion Functional Window” is proposed to describe a period of potentially enhanced myocardial recovery during which systematic functional assessment may facilitate individualized management and future risk stratification. Conclusions: Myocardial recovery after restoration of sinus rhythm represents an underrecognized component of contemporary AF management. Integration of echocardiographic, biomarker-based, and clinical functional assessment may improve understanding of post-cardioversion remodeling and support the development of personalized rhythm-control strategies. Future prospective studies are needed to validate myocardial recovery endpoints and determine their role in guiding therapeutic decisions after cardioversion.