Limitations
We acknowledge several limitations in our study. First, we have only one RCT included in our meta-analysis while the rest were non-randomized comparative studies. Although, all included studies were of good quality based on NewCastle Ottawa scale, reflecting a real-world experience, more randomized controlled trials would provide better evidence for the difference in outcomes between two groups. Second, there were variations in each study in terms of power, types of catheters, contact force, target temperature, and the definition of freedom from atrial arrhythmia, resulting in significant heterogeneity between groups. And seldom included studies analyzed total energy during ablation procedure which we could not compare between two groups. Third, on account of included studies not only performed PVI but also additional linear ablation, different surgical methods might affect the maintenance of sinus rhythm. At last, we have a limited number of studies that reported PVR during redo procedures and with the guidance of AI/LSI. Finally, exact anatomical locations of PVR were not clearly described in each study, so we could not analyze the specific locations of PVR.