Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Data on the comparative value of the circumferential pulmonary vein and the segmental pulmonary vein ablation for interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation are limited. We hypothesized that the circumferential pulmonary vein ablation approach was superior to the segmental pulmonary vein ablation approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients with highly symptomatic atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to undergo either circumferential (n=50) or segmental pulmonary vein ablation (n=50). Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias in a 7-day Holter monitoring at 6 months was the primary end point. Secondary end points were freedom of arrhythmia-related symptoms and a composite of pericardial tamponade, thromboembolic complications, and pulmonary vein stenosis (safety end point). On the basis of the results of the 7-day Holter monitoring at 6 months, 21 patients (42%) after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation and 33 patients (66%) after segmental pulmonary vein ablation (P=0.02) were free of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes. During the 6-month follow-up period, 27 patients (54%) after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation and 41 patients (82%) after segmental pulmonary vein ablation remained free of arrhythmia-related symptoms (P<0.01). No significant difference was found in the safety end point (6 versus 7 events; P=0.77) in the circumferential versus segmental pulmonary vein ablation group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates no superiority of the circumferential pulmonary vein ablation over segmental pulmonary vein ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in terms of efficacy and safety.
Karch et al. (Wed,) studied this question.