Comparison of the empirical linear ablation and low voltage area-guided ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Background: The efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is not guaranteed for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), and it is unclear which type of ablation approach should be applied in addition to PVI. This study aimed to compare outcomes and prognosis between empirical linear ablation and low-voltage area (LVA) ablation after PVI for PeAF.

Methods: We enrolled 128 patients with PeAF who were assigned to the linear ablation group (n = 64) and the LVA ablation group (n = 64) using a propensity score-matched model. After PVI and cardioversion, the patients underwent either empirical linear ablation or LVA ablation during sinus rhythm. All patients in the linear ablation group underwent both roof line and mitral valve isthmus (MVI) ablations. An electrical-guided ablation targeting LVA (< 0.5 mV) was performed in the LVA group. When there was no LVA in the LVA group, only PVI was applied. We compared the procedural outcomes and recurrence after ablation between the two groups.

Results: The baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. Fifty patients had LVA (22 and 28 patients in the linear and LVA groups). The roof and MVI lines were completed in 100% and 96.9% of the patients. During the mean follow-up of 279.5 ± 161.3 days, the LVA group had significantly lower recurrence than the linear group (15 patients [23%] vs. 29 patients [45%], p = 0.014). Thirty-five patients were prescribed antiarrhythmic drugs during the follow-up period (linear group, n = 17; LVA group, n = 18); amiodarone and bepridil were administered to most of the patients (15 and 17 patients, respectively). The difference in the prognosis was relevant among the patients with LVA, while this trend was not observed in those without LVA. The LVA ablation group demonstrated significantly lower radiofrequency energy and shorter procedural time compared to the linear ablation group. The recurrence of atrial flutter was more likely to occur in the linear group than in the LVA group (14 [22%] vs. 6 [9.4%], p = 0.052).

Conclusion: The electrophysiological-guided LVA ablation is more effective than empirical linear ablation in PeAF patients with LVA. Unnecessary empirical linear ablation might have a risk of iatrogenic gap and atrial flutter recurrence.