Repeat ablation strategy for recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation: A propensity‐matched score comparison between “2C3L” and “extensive ablation” approach

BACKGROUND: Debates exist in the repeat ablation strategy for patients with recurrence presenting as persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) after initial persistent AF ablation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome between the "2C3L" and "extensive ablation" approach in patients undergoing repeat procedures for recurrent persistent AF. METHODS: Propensity-score matching was performed in 196 patients with AF recurrence undergoing repeat ablation, and 79 patients treated with "2C3L" strategy were matched to 79 patients treated with "extensive ablation" strategy. The "2C3L" approach included pulmonary vein isolation, mitral isthmus, left atrial roof, and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation, while the "extensive ablation" strategy included extensive ablation of a variety of other targets aiming to terminate the AF. The primary outcome was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia after 24-h ambulatory monitoring follow-up for 12 months. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the primary outcome between the "2C3L" and the "extensive ablation" group [70.9% vs. 69.6%, p = .862; 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.8 to 15.3], although the "extensive ablation" group had a significantly high proportion of AF termination (19.0% for "2C3L" vs. 41.8% for "extensive ablation" group, p = .002; 95% CI 8.5-35.9). And AF termination was not related to the primary outcome in multifactorial regression. At 40 ± 22 months after the repeat procedure, the primary outcome was also comparable (57.0 % for "2C3L" vs. 48.1% for "extensive ablation" group, p = .265; 95% CI -6.6 to 23.7). CONCLUSION: The outcome between the "2C3L" and "extensive ablation" approaches was comparable in patients undergoing repeat procedures for recurrent persistent AF.