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 …