Is empirical four pulmonary vein isolation necessary for focally triggered paroxysmal atrial fibrillation? Comparison of selective pulmonary vein isolation versus empirical four pulmonary vein isolation

Abstract

Selective PV Isolation in AF. Background: We questioned whether the empirical four pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (EmPVI) was necessary in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) triggered from clearly and reproducibly defined arrhythmogenic PVs. Methods: We compared the selective or ipsilateral isolation of the PVs triggering AF (SePVI: n = 42) and EmPVI (n = 35) in 77 patients (males 80.5%, mean age 53.0 +/- 13.4 years) with PAF who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). Arrhythmogenic PVs were identified by the immediate recurrence of AF three consecutive times after cardioverting AF. Results: (1) The duration of the RF energy deliveries (P < 0.01) and total procedure time (P < 0.01) were shorter for the SePVI than the EmPVI. (2) During a mean follow-up of 38.6 +/- 23.1 months, the AF recurrence rate was 38.1% in the SePVI group and 25.7% in the EmPVI group (P = NS). (3) A redo-ablation was performed in 25 patients, and 81.0% of the recurrent arrhythmogenic foci were found at a previously ablated PV or ipsilateral PV. (4) In 15.4% of the SePVI and 20.0% of the EmPVI procedures, AF recurred after 32.5 +/- 15.2 months of the redo-ablation. Subsequently, the AF-free rate for each group was 88.1% (37/42) in the SePVI group and 91.4% (32/35) in the EmPVI group (P = NS). Conclusions: In patients with clearly documented arrhythmogenic PVs, the SePVI of the PV triggering the AF or an ipsilateral PV had a comparable long-term success rate and shorter RF energy delivery and procedure times than the EmPVI.