Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 30.
Published in final edited form as: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Dec 27;42(2):216–223. doi: 10.1111/pace.13573

TABLE 1.

Details of selected studies

First author Study type Total number PerAF Control group Treatment group Risk of bias Quality of methodologyb
Atienza14 RCT 232 117 PVI Driver (PAF) ± PVI (PerAF) No serious limitation High
Lin9 RCT  68  68 PVI + CFAE PVI then rotor ablation within CFAE regions No serious limitation High
Narayan13 Quasiexperimental study 107a  76 PVI ± LA roof line, AT/AFL ablation (PerAF) Driver then PVI (PAF) ± LA roof line, AT/AFL ablation (PerAF) Serious Moderate
Haïssaguerre12 Case-controlled study 103 103 PVI Driver then LA roof + mitral isthmus line if AF persisted then PVI Serious Moderate
Jadidi15 Case-controlled study  85  85 PVI PVI then rotor in low-voltage areas (<0.5 mV) Serious Low
Seitz16 Case-controlled study 105  81 PVI Driver Serious Moderate
Sommer21 Cross-sectional study  20  20 N/A Driver then PVI (PAF) ± LA roof line, AT/AFL ablation (PerAF) Serious Low

AF = atrial fibrillation; AT/AFL = atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter; CFAE = complex fractionated atrial electrogram; LA = left atrium; PAF = paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; PerAF = persistent atrial fibrillation; PVI = pulmonary vein isolation; RCT = randomized controlled trial.

a

Procedure numbers.

b

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.