Background Approaches, tools, and technologies for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have evolved significantly since its inception. We sought to characterize secular trends in AF ablation success rates. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of AF ablation from January 1, 1990, to August 1, 2016, searching PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Major exclusion criteria were insufficient outcome reporting and ablation strategies that were not prespecified and uniform. We stratified treatment arms by AF type (paroxysmal AF; nonparoxysmal AF) and analyzed single-procedure outcomes. Multivariate meta-regressions analyzed effects of study, patient, and procedure characteristics on success rate trends. Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016036549). Results A total of 180 trials and observational studies with 28,118 patients met inclusion. For paroxysmal AF ablation studies, unadjusted success rate summary estimates ranged from 73.1% in 2003 to 77.1% in 2016, increasing by 0.9%/year (95% CI 0.4%−1.4%; P = .001; I2 = 90%). After controlling for study design and patient demographics, rate of improvement in success rate summary estimate increased (1.6%/year; 95% CI 0.9%−2.2%; P = .001; I2 = 87%). For nonparoxysmal AF ablation studies, unadjusted success rate summary estimates ranged from 70.0% in 2010 to 64.3% in 2016 (1.1%/year; 95% CI −1.3% to 3.5%; P = .37; I2 = 85%), with no improvement in multivariate analyses. Conclusions Despite substantial research investment and health care expenditure, improvements in AF ablation success rates have been incremental. Meaningful improvements may require major paradigm or technology changes, and evaluation of clinical outcomes such as mortality and quality of life may prove to be important going forward.

Background: When presenting for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, women, compared with men, tend to have more nonpulmonary vein triggers and advanced atrial disease. Whether this informs differences in AF ablation strategy is not well described. We aimed to characterize ablation strategy and complications by sex, using the Get With The Guidelines-AF registry. Methods: From the Get With The Guidelines-AF registry ablation feature, we included patients who underwent initial AF ablation procedure between January 7, 2016, and December 27, 2019. Patients were stratified based on AF type (paroxysmal versus nonparoxysmal) and sex. We compared patient demographics, ablation strategy, and complications by sex. Results: Among 5356 patients from 31 sites who underwent AF ablation, 1969 were women (36.8%). Women, compared with men, were older (66.8±9.6 versus 63.4±10.6, P <0.0001) and were more likely to have paroxysmal AF (59.4% versus 49.5%, P <0.0001). In women with nonparoxysmal AF, left atrial linear ablation was more frequent (roof line: 53.9% versus 45.3%, P =0.0002; inferior mitral isthmus line: 10.2% versus 7.0%, P =0.01; floor line: 46.1% versus 40.6%, P =0.02) than in men. In multivariable analysis, the association between patient sex and complications from ablation was not statistically significant. Conclusions: In this US wide AF ablation quality improvement registry, women with nonparoxysmal AF were more likely to receive adjunctive lesion sets compared with men. These findings suggest that patient sex may inform ablation strategy in ways that may not be strongly supported by evidence and emphasize the need to clarify optimal ablation strategies by sex.

Background The objective was to explore the efficacy of ablation lesion sets in addition to pulmonary vein isolation ( PVI ) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The optimal strategy for catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is debated. Methods and Results The SMASH‐AF (Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Ablation Strategy Heterogeneity in Atrial Fibrillation) study cohort includes trials and observational studies identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from January 1 1990, to August 1, 2016. We included studies reporting single procedure paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation success rates. Exclusion criteria included insufficient reporting of outcomes, ablation strategies that were not prespecified and uniform, and a sample size of fewer than 40 patients. We analyzed lesion sets performed in addition to PVI ( PVI plus) using multivariable random‐effects meta‐regression to control for patient, study, and procedure characteristics. The analysis included 145 total studies with 23 263 patients ( PVI‐ only cohort: 115 studies, 148 treatment arms, 16 500 patients; PVI plus cohort: 39 studies; 46 treatment arms, 6763 patients). PVI plus studies, as compared with PVI ‐only studies, included younger patients (56.7 years versus 58.8 years, P =0.001), fewer women (27.2% versus 32.0% women, P =0.002), and were more methodologically rigorous with longer follow‐up (29.5 versus 17.1 months, P 0.004) and more randomization (19.4% versus 11.8%, P <0.001). In multivariable meta‐regression, PVI plus studies were associated with improved success (7.6% absolute improvement [95% CI, 2.6–12.5%]; P <0.01, I 2 =88%), specifically superior vena cava isolation (4 studies, 4 treatment arms, 1392 patients; 15.1% absolute improvement [95% CI, 2.3–27.9%]; P 0.02, I 2 =87%). However, residual heterogeneity was large. Conclusions Across the paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation literature, PVI plus ablation strategies were associated with incremental improvements in success rate. However, large residual heterogeneity complicates evidence synthesis.