Biatrial linear ablation in sustained nonpermanent AF: Results of the substrate modification with ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs in nonpermanent atrial fibrillation (SMAN-PAF) trial.

BACKGROUND

More advanced atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with lower success rates after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), and the optimal ablation strategy is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of additional linear ablation (lines) compared to PVI alone.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 122 patients (mean age 61.9 ± 10.5 years; left atrial diameter 43 ± 6 mm) with persistent AF (PeAF) or sustained (>12 hours) paroxysmal AF (SusPAF) with risk factors for atrial substrate were included and followed up for 12 months. Patients were randomized to PVI-only or PVI + lines (left atrial roof line, mitral isthmus line, and tricuspid isthmus line) group. Holter monitoring was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months and according to symptoms. The primary outcome was atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence lasting ≥30 seconds.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups; 61% had PeAF and 39% SusPAF. Successful PVI was achieved for 98% of pulmonary veins, and bidirectional block was obtained in 90% of lines. The primary end point occurred in 38% of the PVI + lines group and 32% of the PVI-only group (P = .50), which was consistent in both PeAF (36% vs 28%; P = .45) and SusPAF (42% vs 39%; P = .86). Compared with the PVI-only group, the PVI + lines group had higher procedure duration (209 ± 52 minutes vs 172 ± 44 minutes; P < .001), ablation time (4352 ± 1084 seconds vs 2503 ± 1061 seconds; P < .001), and radiation exposure (Dose-area product 3992 ± 6496 Gy·cm(2) vs 2106 ± 1679 Gy·cm(2); P = .03). Quality of life (disease-specific Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life questionnaire and mental component scale of the Short Form 36 Health Survey) improved significantly during the study but did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding lines to wide antral PVI in substrate-based AF requires significantly more ablation, increases procedure duration and radiation dose, but provides no additional clinical benefit.