Background-Restoring sinus rhythm in patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) may improve left ventricular (LV) function and HF symptoms. We sought to compare the effect of a catheter ablation strategy with that of a medical rate control strategy in patients with persistent AF and HF. Methods and Results-Patients with persistent AF, symptomatic HF, and LV ejection fraction <50% were randomized to catheter ablation or medical rate control. The primary end-point was the difference between groups in LV ejection fraction at 6 months. Baseline LV ejection fraction was 32±8% in the ablation group and 34±12% in the medical group. Twentysix patients underwent catheter ablation, and 24 patients were rate controlled. Freedom from AF was achieved in 21/26 (81%) at 6 months off antiarrhythmic drugs. LV ejection fraction at 6 months in the ablation group was 40±12% compared with 31±13% in the rate control group (P=0.015

Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using high power delivered by SmartTouch Surround Flow (STSF) catheters guided by ablation index (AI) was evaluated in a multicenter registry. Methods Patients with paroxysmal AF underwent PVI with STSF catheters using 30 W on the posterior wall and 40 W elsewhere. AI targets were 350 posterior walls and 450 elsewhere. Procedures were compared with controls using conventionally irrigated contact force‐sensing catheters using conventional powers (25 W posterior wall and 30 W elsewhere) guided by force‐time integral (no agreed targets). The waiting period of 30 minutes was observed before adenosine administration to assess acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection. Results One hundred patients from four centers were included: 50 patients in the high power ablation index (HPAI) group and 50 controls. Procedure time was 22% shorter in the HPAI group (156 [133.8‐179] vs 199 [178.5‐227] minutes; P < 0.001). Duration of the radiofrequency application was 37% shorter in the HPAI group (27.2 [21.5‐35.8] vs 43.2 [35.1‐52.1] minutes; P < 0.001). Acute PV reconnection was reduced (28 of 200 [14%] vs 48 of 200 [24%] veins; P = 0.015). Reconnection was predicted by a largest interlesion distance greater than 6 mm, a lesion with impedance drop less than 2.5 Ω, contact force less than 6 g, or less than 68% of the regional AI target (all P < 0.001). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year off antiarrhythmic drugs after a single procedure was 78% in the HPAI group vs 64% in the control group ( P = 0.186). Conclusion High‐powered ablation guided by AI was safe and led to shorter procedure times with reduced acute PV reconnection compared with conventional ablation.