Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Repeat in situ ablation vs. extensive ablation for recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation
Corrected 23 Oct 2026: Measure wording clarified; no values changed.
Authors' conclusion
Among patients with PerAF undergoing repeat ablation, the EXT group demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared with the in situ group, indicating that PV reconnection and linear lesion reconduction may not constitute the predominant mechanisms driving AF recurrence.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing repeat ablation
- Participants
- 66 vs 66
- Comparison
- Extra-PV extensive ablation vs repeat PV isolation (PVI) and linear ablation
- EXTn = 66
- In situn = 66reference
- Primary endpoint
- Freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) episodes lasting >30 s
- Follow-up
- 12 months
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.587
95% CI 0.348–0.992, event not clearly stated
log-rank P = 0.037
Events by treatment group
Further findings
Freedom from AF recurrence
HR 0.509 (0.278–0.932) · log-rank P = 0.027
Safety
Safety endpoints · no significant difference
P = 0.716
Original publication
Repeat in situ ablation vs. extensive ablation for recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. Europace. Published 22 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →