Key result
Adding CFA- and DOA-guided substrate ablation to repeat pulmonary vein isolation did not reduce arrhythmia recurrence compared to isolation alone (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.50-2.33; p=0.85).
Why the study?
No standard approach exists for substrate ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation, and it is unclear if adding targeted substrate ablation to repeat PVI improves long-term outcomes.
Does repeat pulmonary vein isolation plus targeted substrate ablation improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing a second ablation compared with repeat pulmonary vein isolation alone?
RCT (n=56)
Open-label, blinded-endpoint
1:1
Yes
Does repeat pulmonary vein isolation plus targeted substrate ablation improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing a second ablation compared with repeat pulmonary vein isolation alone?
Hazard Ratio: 1.07 (95% CI 0.5–2.33)
p-value: p=0.85
In patients undergoing a second ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation, adding targeted substrate ablation to repeat pulmonary vein isolation did not significantly reduce arrhythmia recurrence, though the trial was limited by premature termination and a small sample size.
Targeted substrate ablation adds no benefit to repeat PVI in persistent AF redo procedures; challenges adjunctive ablation and leaves optimal strategy unresolved.
Background and Aims: Currently, no standard approach exists for substrate ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to assess whether repeat pulmonary vein isolation (Re-PVI) plus targeted substrate ablation improves long-term outcomes compared with Re-PVI alone in patients with persistent AF undergoing a second ablation. Methods: The AF-CAM study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multi-center clinical trial. Patients with persistent AF undergoing a second ablation for arrhythmia recurrence were randomized 1:1 to either Group A (Re-PVI alone) or Group B (Re-PVI plus targeted ablation). The primary endpoint was freedom from any atrial arrhythmia (>30 s) between 3 and 12 months of follow-up. Results: Between August 2021 and November 2023, 56 patients (mean age 68 ± 10 years, 32% women) were randomized before the trial was terminated prematurely. There was no evidence of a difference in arrhythmia recurrence between the treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, Group B vs. Group A: 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 2.33; p = 0.85). Pulmonary vein reconnection was present in 86% of patients and was not associated with the risk of atrial arrhythmia recurrence (HR 0.927, 95% CI [0.275, 3.120]). Across both groups, catheter ablation was associated with improvements in quality of life (AFEQT score) and reductions in BNP levels during follow-up. Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated randomized trial, adding CFA- and DOA-guided substrate ablation to Re-PVI did not demonstrate an improvement in freedom from atrial arrhythmia compared with Re-PVI alone. The small sample size and imprecise treatment estimate preclude a definitive conclusion about the efficacy of the adjunctive strategy. AFEQT scores increased and BNP levels decreased over follow-up in the studied patients. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate the complex atrial substrate in persistent AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Willems et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=56). Repeat pulmonary vein isolation (Re-PVI) plus targeted substrate ablation vs. Re-PVI alone was evaluated on Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia (>30 s) between 3 and 12 months of follow-up (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.33, p=0.85). Adding CFA- and DOA-guided substrate ablation to repeat pulmonary vein isolation did not reduce arrhythmia recurrence compared to isolation alone (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.50-2.33; p=0.85).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: