Overview
Although there have been many advances made in the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF, there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of initiation and maintenance of AF and how to apply this knowledge to the still-evolving techniques of AF ablation. Although single-center, observational reports have dominated the early days of this field, we are quickly moving into an era in which hypotheses are put through the rigor of testing in well-designed, randomized, multicenter clinical trials. It is as a result of these trials that conventional thinking about the best techniques, success rates, complication rates, and long-term outcomes beyond AF recurrence—such as thromboembolism and mortality—is being put to the test. The ablation literature has also seen a proliferation of meta-analyses and other aggregate analyses, which reinforce the need for consistency in the approach to reporting the results of clinical trials. This section will review the minimum requirements for reporting on AF ablation trials. It will also acknowledge the potential limitations of using specific primary outcomes and emphasize the need for broad and consistent reporting of secondary outcomes to assist the end-user in determining not only the scientific, but also the clinical relevance of the results.