Additional Complex Fractionated Atrial Electrograms Ablation Research Articles

Does Additional Electrogram-Guided Ablation After Linear Ablation Reduce Recurrence After Catheter Ablation for Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation? A Prospective Randomized Study.

BackgroundAlthough circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) catheter ablation may not be sufficient for long‐standing persistent atrial fibrillation (L‐PeAF), it is not clear which ablation strategy is beneficial in addition to CPVI. We sought to investigate whether additional complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE)‐guided ablation improves clinical outcomes in L‐PeAF patients who exhibit continuous atrial fibrillation (AF) after CPVI and linear ablation (Line).Methods and ResultsThis study enrolled 137 L‐PeAF patients (71.4% male, 61.6±10.9 years old) who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation. We conducted CPVI+Line based on the Dallas lesion set (posterior box+anterior line) after baseline CFAE mapping in all patients. If AF was defragmented (terminated or changed to atrial tachycardia), the procedure was stopped (AF‐Defrag group, n=29). If AF was maintained after CPVI+Line, we mapped the CFAE again and randomly assigned the patient to the CPVI+Line group (n=54) or the additional CFAE ablation group (CPVI+Line+CFAE group, n=54). L‐PeAF was defragmented during CPVI+Line in 21.2% of patients (29/137, AF‐Defrag group). The mean CFAE cycle length was prolonged (P<0.001), and CFAE area (CFAE cycle length <120 milliseconds) was reduced (P<0.001) after CPVI+Line in the remaining patients. Procedure time was longer in the CPVI+Line+CFAE group than the CPVI+Line group (P=0.023), but procedure‐related complication rates did not vary. During 22.3±13.2 months of follow‐up, the clinical recurrence rates were 17.2% in the AF‐Defrag group, 18.5% in the CPVI+Line group, and 32.1% in the CPVI+Line+CFAE group (log rank, P=0.166).ConclusionsAlthough CPVI+Line reduces and localizes CFAE area, additional CFAE ablation after CPVI+Line does not improve the clinical outcomes of catheter ablation in patients with L‐PeAF.

Difference in the maintenance mechanism of atrial fibrillation perpetuated after pulmonary vein isolation between paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: Effects of subsequent stepwise ablation

BackgroundNeither the atrial fibrillation (AF) maintenance mechanism after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) nor the mechanism of AF termination via stepwise ablation is clearly understood. MethodsAmong 226 consecutive AF patients (154 paroxysmal (P-AF) and 72 persistent AF (Per-AF) patients), left atrial endocardial non-contact mapping was performed after PVI in the initial 10 P-AF and 16 Per-AF patients to define the AF maintenance mechanism. Subsequently, effect of stepwise catheter ablation (linear roof lesion and complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) following PVI) was evaluated in all patients. ResultsAfter PVI, AF was maintained by the activation around isolated PV/mitral annulus, focal discharge and disorganized activations mostly observed over residual CFAE region (pivoting activation, wave break and fusion). CFAE region in P-AF was smaller than Per-AF after PVI (1.6±2.1 vs. 7.7±2.5cm2, p<0.0001). The frequency of pivoting activation, wave break and fusion in P-AF were lower than those in Per-AF (1.9±2.0 vs. 11.8±5.0 times/s; p<0.0001, 0.1±0.3 vs. 3.6±2.5 times/s; p<0.001, 5.8±3.6 vs. 9.8±3.2 times/s; p<0.01). AF termination was more frequent in P-AF than Per-AF (94.8% vs 81.9%, p=0.0019). AF termination by PVI alone was more frequent in P-AF than Per-AF (85.6% vs. 18.6%, p<0.0001). However, AF termination via roof line and/or CFAE ablation was less frequent in P-AF than Per-AF (14.4 vs. 81.4%, p<0.0001). ConclusionsDisorganized activations after PVI, more prominent in Per-AF, were associated with residual CFAE region. Most P-AF was terminated by PVI alone, however additional roof line lesion and CFAE ablation were necessary to terminate Per-AF, consistent with mapping results.

Abstract 17457: Does Additional Complex Fractionated Atrial Elecrogram Guided Ablation After Linear Ablation Improve Clinical Outcome of Catheter Ablation for Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation? A Prospective Randomized Study

Introduction: Although long-lasting circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) is a corner stone of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), it is not clear whether additional linear or complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE)-guided ablations improve clinical outcome in patients with long-standing persistent AF (L-PeAF). Hypothesis: The purposes of this study were to compare CFAE maps before and after linear ablation, and to test whether additional CFAE ablation after linear ablation improves clinical outcome of L-PeAF. Methods: This study enrolled 119 consecutive L-PeAF patients (male 72.8%, 61.7±10.6 years old) who underwent RFCA. After baseline CFAE mapping, we conducted CPVI and linear ablations (posterior box lesion and anterior line). If AF maintained after linear ablation, we mapped CFAE again, and randomly assigned the patients to linear ablation group (Line, n=45) and additional CFAE ablation group (CFAE+Line, n=48). The patients whose AF terminated or changed to AT were excluded from randomization and classified as AF-Stop group (n=26). We compared pre- and post-linear ablation CFAE maps and clinical outcomes of CFAE+Line, Line, and AF-Stop groups. Results: 1. Mean CFAE-cycle length (CL) was significantly prolonged (203.65±40.35 ms to 264.17±39.03 ms, p&lt;0.001) and CFAE area was reduced (15.49±14.95% to 7.95±9.36%, p&lt;0.001) after linear ablation. Post-linear ablation CFAE was mainly located at left atrial (LA) appendage, septum, and posterior inferior LA. 2. There were no differences in total procedure time (p=0.441), ablation time (p=0.144), and procedure-related complication rate (p=0.955) among three groups. 3. During 17.4±10.5 month follow-up period, clinical recurrence rates were 30.4% in CFAE+Line group, 12.8% in Line group, and 16.7% in AF-Stop groups, respectively (Log rank, p=0.138). 4. Additional CFAE ablation after linear ablation did not improve clinical outcome of catheter ablation at all in patients with L-PeAF (HR 2.11, 95% CI 0.91 - 4.89, p=0.082). Conclusions: Linear ablation prolonged CFAE-CL and localized CFAE area in patients with L-PeAF. However, CFAE guided ablation in addition to linear ablation and CPVI did not improve clinical outcome of catheter ablation.

The symbiosis of contact force catheter use for hybrid ablation for atrial fibrillation

ObjectiveReconduction across an ablation line is a common reason for arrhythmia recurrence over time. The hybrid procedure combines epicardial ablation of the pulmonary vein (PV) and creation of a box lesion with endocardial touch-ups for any electrical gaps. A high contact force (CF) between the ablation tip and cardiac tissue may increase the risk of thrombus formation, catheter tip charring, steam pop formation, and even cardiac perforation. CF monitoring is a significant new parameter for titration of the CF for creating an adequate lesion.MethodsThirty-eight consecutive patients underwent epicardial ablation using bipolar radiofrequency devices. After checking electrical bidirectional block of the ablation lines, an endocardial CF catheter was used for further ablation (if needed) to complete the isolation of PVs, box lesion, cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI), and complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE).ResultsEndocardial touch-up was needed for 2 PVs (1.3 %) and 10 (26.3 %) box lesions. It was also used for the CTI line in 7 (18.4 %) patients, atrial tachycardia in 3 (7.9 %) patients, and additional CFAE ablation in 17 (44.7 %) patients. All 5 patients with arrhythmia recurrence had a mean CF < 10 g (p = 0.03). Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the CF group (223 ± 57 vs. 256 ± 60 min, p = 0.03) compared with control group.ConclusionUse of CF catheters is safe, feasible, and complementary to a hybrid procedure setup for atrial fibrillation ablation. Its real-time monitoring may predict future arrhythmia recurrence, and decrease procedure time.

A decade of complex fractionated electrograms catheter-based ablation for atrial fibrillation: Literature analysis, meta-analysis and systematic review

BackgroundIt has been a decade since the complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) were first established following the publication of Nademanee's standards. However, the status and focus of CFAE research are unclear, as is the efficacy of additional CFAE ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF). This literature review and meta-analysis were designed to determine the status of CFAE research and the efficacy and complications of CFAE ablation alone, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone and PVI plus CFAE ablation in AF. MethodsWith the assistance from reference librarians and investigators trained in systematic review, we conducted a literature search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Wiley Blackwell and Web of Knowledge, using “complex fractionated atrial electrograms” for MeSH and keyword search. ResultsThe literature on CFAEs increased from 2007, mainly focusing on mapping studies, with mechanism studies increasing significantly from 2012. Fifteen trials with 1525 patients were qualified for our meta-analysis. Success rates were as follows. Overall (P < 0.001): CFAE ablation alone, 23.5–26.2%; PVI, 64.7%; PVI plus CFAE ablation, 67.0%. Single ablation: PVI, 60.4%; PVI plus CFAEs, 68.8% (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07–2.20, P = 0.02). Re-ablation: PVI, 69.0%; PVI plus CFAEs, 77.2% (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06–2.24, P = 0.02). Paroxysmal AF: PVI, 76.7%; PVI plus CFAEs, 79.1% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79–1.81, P = 0.39). Persistent or permanent AF: PVI, 47.9%; PVI plus CFAEs, 58.7% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.13–2.24, P = 0.008). Complication rates: PVI, 2.6%; PVI plus CFAEs, 3.4% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.58–2.57, P = 0.61). ConclusionsIn the literature, CFAE mapping studies preceded mechanism studies. CFAE ablation alone is insufficient for the treatment of AF. Additional CFAE ablation after adequate PVI or PVI plus linear ablation improves the outcome of single ablation and re-ablation without increasing complications, especially in persistent or permanent AF. There are insufficient data to support a similar improvement in paroxysmal AF or inducible AF after PVI for paroxysmal AF.

Impact of biatrial defragmentation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results from a randomized prospective study.

Single procedure success rates of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) are still unsatisfactory. In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) after PVI results in improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate if PAF-patients with intraprocedurally sustained AF after PVI might benefit from additional CFAE ablation. A total of 1134 consecutive patients underwent a first catheter ablation procedure of PAF between June 2008 and December 2012. In most patients, AF was either not inducible or terminated during PVI. In 68 patients (6%), AF sustained after successful PVI. These patients were randomized to either cardioversion (PVI-alone group; n = 33) or additional CFAE ablation (PVI+CFAE group; n = 35) and followed up every 1-3 months and serial Holter recordings were also obtained. The primary end point was the recurrence of AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) after a blanking period of 3 months. Procedure duration (127 ± 6 minutes vs 174 ± 10 minutes), radiofrequency application time (44 ± 3 minutes vs 74 ± 5 minutes), and fluoroscopy time (26 ± 2 minutes vs 41 ± 3 minutes) were longer in the PVI+CFAE group (all P < .001). In 30 of 35 patients (86%) in the PVI+CFAE group, ablation terminated AF. There was no significant group difference with respect to freedom from AF/AT (22 of 33 [67%] vs 22 of 35 [63%]; P = .66). Subsequently, 10 of 11 patients in the PVI-alone group (91%) and 11 of 13 patients in PVI+CFAE group (85%) underwent repeat ablation (P = 1.00). Overall, 29 of 33 [88%] vs 30 of 35 [86%] patients (P = 1.00) were free from AF/AT after 1.4 ± 0.1 vs 1.4 ± 0.2 (P = .87) procedures. Patients with sustained AF after PVI in a PAF cohort are rare. Regarding AF/AT recurrence, these patients did not benefit from further CFAE ablation compared to PVI alone, but are exposed to longer procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and radiofrequency application time.

Benefits and risks of additional ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms for patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe benefits and risks of additional complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. MethodsTrials were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database, reviews, and reference lists of relevant papers. The primary end point was the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias after a single ablation. ResultsWe meta-analyzed 11 studies (total, n=983) using random-effects model to compare PVI (n=478) with PVI plus CFAE ablation (PVI+CFAE) (n=505). Additional CFAE ablation reduced recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia after a single procedure (pooled RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61, 0.88; P=0.0007) at ≥3-month follow-up. There was no evidence of heterogeneity among studies (I2=33%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that additional CFAE ablation reduced rates of recurrence in nonparoxysmal AF (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47, 0.99; P=0.05), whereas had no effect on patients with paroxysmal AF (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.59, 1.06; P=0.12). Eight studies reported results of post-procedure ATs. The addition of CFAE ablation increased the rate of post-procedure ATs (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.02, 3.07; P=0.04). Additional CFAE ablation significantly increased mean procedural times (245.4+75.7 vs. 189.5+62.3min, P<0.001), mean fluoroscopy (72.1+25.6 vs. 59.5+19.3min, P<0.001), and mean RF energy application times (75.3+38.6 vs. 53.2+27.5min, P<0.001). ConclusionsThe adjunctive CFAE ablation could provide additional benefit in terms of reducing recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia for patients with nonparoxysmal AF but not for patients with paroxysmal AF after a single procedure with or without antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). The main risk of adjunctive CFAE ablation is the increasing rate of untraceable postablation ATs.

Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

A new era of atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment began in 1997–1998 with the discovery that triggers within the pulmonary veins initiate AF and reports that elimination of these triggers is successful in treating AF in its paroxysmal form.1–3 However, in patients with persistent AF, the success rate of exclusive pulmonary vein isolation is substantially lower.4,5 To improve the outcome of persistent AF ablation, different ablation strategies have been explored, but to date the optimal strategy has not been defined. Although some groups argue that limited ablation, including pulmonary vein isolation and, if present, ablation of nonpulmonary vein triggers, is sufficient for persistent AF ablation, other groups, including ours, favor more extensive, substrate-based ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation. In this review, we will discuss the rationale for a substrate-based ablation strategy to treat persistent AF and show why elimination of triggers is not sufficient in most patients with persistent AF. Response by Roten et al on p 1232 In a simple model, an electric impulse in AF can form because of abnormalities in impulse generation (triggers) or can result from abnormal impulse propagation (reentry). By a strict definition, a trigger is a focal source of new impulse generation. The mechanism by which a new impulse can form is either abnormal automaticity or triggered activity. Trigger-ablation protocols target these sources of new impulse generation. Abnormal impulse propagation, on the other hand, depends on altered substrate properties causing nonuniform or slowed conduction. This in turn causes multiple forms of wave reentry thought to be responsible for AF perpetuation: random reentry (multiple wavelets), macro- and microreentry, or functional reentry (rotors). Substrate-based ablation strategies aim to abate abnormal impulse propagation and interrupt any form of atrial reentry. Triggers of paroxysmal AF are mainly located in the pulmonary …

Complex Fractionated Atrial Electrogram or Linear Ablation in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation—A Prospective Randomized Study

Catheter ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is a promising treatment strategy. We tested the hypothesis that CFAE ablation is superior to linear ablation in patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF. In this study, 116 patients with persistent AF were randomly assigned to undergo circumferential PVI plus additional lines (linear ablation group; 59 patients) or CFAE ablation plus ostial pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (spot ablation group; 57 patients). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia after a single ablation procedure (clinical and repeat 7-day Holter), 12 months after ablation without antiarrhythmic medication. The primary endpoint was reached in 22 of 59 (37%) patients of the linear ablation group and in 22 of 57 (39%) patients of the spot ablation group (P = 0.9). Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias, including reablations, was achieved in 54% of patients (linear ablation group) versus 56% of patients (spot ablation group; P = 0.8). The incidence of recurrent persistent AF was higher after linear ablation than after spot ablation (21/37 vs 11/35 patients; P = 0.03); atrial tachycardia (AT) was seen more often after spot ablation (10/35 vs 4/37 patients; P = 0.03). In patients with persistent AF, CFAE ablation plus PVI reaches the same results as circumferential PVI plus lines, in terms of freedom from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias within the first year after a single ablation procedure. Arrhythmia recurrences in patients after spot ablation were caused more often by AT, whereas recurrent persistent AF was more prevalent after the linear ablation approach.

Additional Ablation of Complex Fractionated Atrial Electrograms After Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Background— The efficacy of additional complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation after pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the additional efficacy of CFAEs ablation after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. Methods and Results— Trials were identified in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, reviews, and reference lists of relevant papers. Controlled cohort studies comparing the long-term efficacy of combined CFAEs plus PVAI ablation with PVAI alone were included. The primary end point was the maintenance of sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic drugs. Seven controlled trials (9 comparisons) with a total of 622 participants (332 patients underwent PVAI plus CFAE ablation and 330 patients underwent PVAI alone) were included in the meta-analysis. In an overall pooled estimate, compared with PVI alone, long-term rates of sinus rhythm maintenance (relative risk, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.33, P =0.019) were increased by additional CFAE ablation. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that additional CFAEs ablation increased rates of sinus rhythm maintenance in nonparoxysmal AF (relative risk, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.75; P =0.022), whereas had no effect on patients with paroxysmal AF (relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.18; P =0.528). Conclusions— Adjuvant CFAE ablation in addition to standard PVAI increases the rate of long-term sinus rhythm maintenance in nonparoxysmal AF patients after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs but does not provide additional benefit to sinus rhythm maintenance in paroxysmal AF patients.

Effect of CFAE Ablation on Clinical Outcome in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Hybrid Therapy of Ablation and Bepridil

Introduction: The effect of complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation on clinical outcome in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing hybrid therapy of ablation and short-term bepridil therapy is unknown. Methods: 52 patients (28 with persistent and 24 with long-standing persistent) were studied by serial echocardiography and 24-h ambulatory electrocardiogram at baseline and at 3-, 6-, 12-month intervals after hybrid therapy. Extensive pulmonary vein isolation (EPVI) was performed for all of the patients. CFAE ablation was performed in 22 patients guided by the electro-anatomical mapping system. All patients were treated with bepridil for three months following ablation. Results: Recurrence of AF was observed in 10 and 6 patients, which became chronic in 2 and 4, in the patients with EPVI alone and additional CFAE ablation, respectively. Compared with EPVI alone, long-term rates of sinus rhythm maintenance (relative risk, 0.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 2.51, P=NS) were not changed by additional CFAE ablation. Additional CFAE ablation did not decrease rates of degenerating into chronic AF after ablation in the patients with hybrid therapy (relative risk, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 18.78; P=NS). Conclusions: Adjuvant CFAE ablation in addition to standard EPVI do not decrease the rate of recurrent AF in patients with persistent AF undergoing hybrid therapy.

Catheter Ablation of Long‐Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Lesson from Circumferential Pulmonary Vein Isolation

Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) is associated with a high success rate in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in patients with long-standing persistent AF, the ideal ablation strategy still remains a matter of debate. Two-hundred and five patients underwent catheter ablation for long-standing persistent AF defined as continuous AF of more than 1-year duration. In a first step, all patients underwent CPVI. If direct-current cardioversion failed following CPVI, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) was performed. The goal was conversion into sinus rhythm (SR) or, alternatively, atrial tachycardia (AT) with subsequent ablation. A total of 340 procedures were performed. CPVI alone was performed during 165 procedures in 124 of 205 (60.5%) patients. In the remaining 81 patients, additional CFAE ablation was performed in 45, left linear lesions for recurrent ATs in 44 and SVC isolation in 15 patients, respectively, resulting in inadvertent left atrial appendage isolation in 9 (4.4%) patients. After the initial ablation procedure, 67 of 199 patients remained in SR during a mean follow-up of 19 ± 11 months. Six patients were lost to follow-up. After a mean of 1.7 ± 0.8 procedures, 135 of 199 patients (67.8%) remained in SR. Eighty-six patients (43.2%) remained in SR following CPVI performed as the sole ablative strategy. CPVI alone is sufficient to restore SR in 43.2% of patients with long-standing persistent AF. Multiple procedures and additional ablation strategies with a significant risk of inadvertent left atrial appendage isolation are often required to maintain stable SR.

Does Electrogram Guided Substrate Ablation Add to the Success of Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation? A Prospective, Randomized Study

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an established treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) has emerged as a novel treatment approach. We sought to evaluate the additional effect of CFAE ablation to PVI in paroxysmal AF. Ninety-eight patients with paroxysmal AF (57 +/- 10 years, 74 male) were randomized to the PVI (n = 48) or PVI + CFAE group (n = 50). After PVI, CFAE ablation was performed in patients with inducible AF in the PVI + CFAE group. The primary endpoint was combined objective (7-day Holter ECG) and subjective (symptoms) freedom of atrial tachyarrhythmia 3 months after ablation. Long-term follow-up (19 +/- 8 months) was available in 94 of 98 patients. CFAE ablation was performed in 30 of 50 patients of the PVI + CFAE group. After 3 months, 36 of 48 patients (75%) in the PVI group and 38 of 50 patients (76%) in the PVI + CFAE group were in stable sinus rhythm (P = NS). During long-term follow-up (19 +/- 8 months), 34 of 46 patients (74%) in the PVI group and 40 of 48 patients (83%) in the PVI + CFAE group were in sinus rhythm (P = 0.08). In a subgroup analysis, a significantly better long-term outcome was achieved if inducible AF after PVI had been treated by additional CFAE ablation as compared with PVI only (sinus rhythm in 25/28 patients; 89% vs 22/30 patients 73%; P = 0.003). In the intention-to-treat analysis, additional CFAE ablation did not improve the success rate of PVI in patients with paroxysmal AF. However, during long-term follow-up, patients with still inducible AF after PVI seemed to profit from additional CFAE ablation.

Abstract 2752: Pulmonary Vein Isolation With And Without Additional Ablation Of Complex Fractionated Electrograms In Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-term Results Of A Prospective Randomized Study

Introduction: Segmental pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) leads to elimination of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) in approximately 75% of patients. Ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) is an alternative ablation strategy. In this prospective randomized study the long-term effect of PVI alone is compared to the effect of combined PVI and CFAE ablation in paroxysmal AF. Methods: 98 patients with paroxysmal AF (57±10 years, 74 male) were randomly assigned to PVI (48 patients) or PVI+CFAE ablation (50 patients). Additional CFAE ablation was performed in the PVI+CFAE group if AF was still inducible after PVI. Follow-up results were assessed with repetitive 7 days Holter ECG and clinical evaluation including repeat ablations. Results: Additional CFAE ablation was performed in 30/50 (60%) patients of the PVI+CFAE group with still inducible AF after PVI. In each group, 2 patients were lost to long term follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 3 months and after 19±8 months, there was no significant difference between both groups (36/48 [75%] and 34/46 [74%] patients in the PVI and 37/50 [73%] and 40/48 [83%] of patients in the PVI+CFAE ablation group in sinus rhythm [p=0.32]). In subgroup analysis, patients actually treated with the combined PVI+CFAE ablation approach had a significantly better long-term success (25/28; 89%) than patients with still inducible AF who underwent PVI only (22/30;73%; p=0.02). In both groups repeat ablations were performed in 31% (PVI group; 15/48 patients) and 35% (PVI+CFAE group; 17/48 patients) (p=n.s). After 9 months, significantly more patients in the PVI+CFAE group experienced sustained regular atrial tachycardia than in the PVI group (6/44 versus 1/39 patients, P=0.02). Conclusion: The combination of PVI and CFAE ablation was equally effective than PVI alone in reaching freedom of AF in the intention-to-treat analysis. During long-term follow-up, patients actually treated with combined PVI+CFAE ablation had a significantly better outcome (89% vs. 73%). However, the rate of ablation-induced regular atrial tachycardias is inreased.