Strategy for repeat procedures in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: Systematic linear ablation with adjunctive ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall versus electrophysiology‐guided ablation

INTRODUCTION: The optimal strategy after a failed ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (perAF) is unknown. This study evaluated the value of an anatomically guided strategy using a systematic set of linear lesions with adjunctive ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall (Et-VOM) in patients referred for second perAF ablation procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with perAF who underwent a second procedure were grouped according to the two strategies. The first strategy was an anatomically guided approach using systematic linear ablation with adjunctive Et-VOM, with bidirectional blocks at the posterior mitral isthmus (MI), roof, and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) as the procedural endpoint (Group I). The second one was an electrophysiology-guided strategy, with atrial tachyarrhythmia termination as the procedural endpoint (Group II). Arrhythmia behavior during the procedure guided the ablation strategy. Groups I and II consisted of 96 patients (65 ± 9 years; 71 men) and 102 patients (63 ± 10 years; 83 men), respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable. In Group I, Et-VOM was successfully performed in 91/96 (95%), and procedural endpoint (bidirectional block across all three anatomical lines) was achieved in 89/96 (93%). In Group II, procedural endpoint (atrial tachyarrhythmia termination) was achieved in 80/102 (78%). One-year follow-up demonstrated Group I (21/96 [22%]) experienced less recurrence compared to Group II (38/102 [37%], Log-rank p = .01). This was driven by lower AT recurrence in Group I (Group I: 10/96 [10%] vs. Group II: 29/102 [28%]; p = .002). CONCLUSION: Anatomically guided strategy with adjunctive Et-VOM is superior to an electrophysiology-guided strategy for second procedures in patients with perAF at 1-year follow-up.