Table 1.

Summary of trial outcomes of substrate-based ablation

	Rhythm during mapping	Mapping catheter (electrode size)	Mapping density (mean ± SD points per map)	Control group N (PAF, PsAF)	Study group N (PAF, PsAF)	Control intervention	LVA intervention	F/U (months)	Arrhythmia-free survival (control vs. study)	Additional electrogram features?
Schreiber 2017 [5]	Sinus rhythm	Ablation (3.5 mm)	> 100	No LVA n = 49 (39, 10)	< 0.5 mV n = 92 (34, 58)	PVI alone	PVI + BIFA + L	12	84% vs. 69% P = 0.16	None
Yagishita 2017 [9]	AF	Ablation (3.5 mm)	166 ± 62	No LVA n = 42 (15, 27)	< 0.5 mV n = 159 (22, 137)	PVI alone	PVI + HI	12	71% vs. 72% P = 0.746	None
Yamaguchi 2016 [6]	Sinus rhythm	Ablation and mapping (4 mm and 1 mm)	576 ± 150	No LVA n = 62 (15, 47)	<0.5mV n = 39 (18, 21)	PVI alone	PVI + HI	32	79% vs. 72% P = 0.400	None
Jadidi 2016 [3]	AF	Mapping (1 mm)	1024 ± 124	Unselected n = 66 (0, 66)	Unselected n = 85 (0, 85)	PVI alone	PVI + H + RA (further ablation only to terminate AF)	13	47% vs. 69% P < 0.001	< 0.5 mV, fractionation, rotational activity, rapid local activation
Yang 2016 [7]	Sinus rhythm	Mapping (1 mm)	628 ± 212	Unselected n = 78 (0, 78)	Unselected n = 86 (0, 86)	Stepwise	PVI + HI	30	51% vs. 70% P = 0.011	< 1.3 mV, > 50 ms, ≥ 3 deflections
Cutler 2016† [4]	Sinus rhythm	Ablation (not stated)	Not stated	Unselected n = 76 (0, 76)	Unselected n = 65 (0, 65)	PVI + PWI (discretionary)	PVI + PWI	12	57% vs. 80% P = 0.005	None
Kottkamp 2016 [2]	Sinus rhythm	Ablation (4 mm)	100–120	No LVA n = 13 (0, 13)	< 0.5 mV n = 18 (0, 18)	PVI alone	PVI + BIFA	12	69% vs. 72% P = 0.742	None
Rolf 2014 [1]	Sinus rhythm	Mapping and ablation (2.1 and 4 mm)	115 ± 35	No LVA n = 131 (56, 75) With LVA n = 26 (9, 17)	<0.5mv n = 47 (6, 41)	PVI alone	PVI + HL	12	62% vs. 27% vs. 70%	None

References are highlighted within the table

PVI, pulmonary vein isolation; H, homogenisation; I, isthmus; L, linear; T, transition zone; LVA, low voltage areas; PWI, posterior wall isolation; BIFA, box isolation of fibrotic area; RA, right atrium