Background— The single-procedure efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is less than optimal in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Adjunctive techniques have been developed to enhance single-procedure efficacy in these patients. We conducted a study to compare 3 ablation strategies in patients with persistent AF. Methods and Results— Subjects were randomized as follows: arm 1, PVI + ablation of non-PV triggers identified using a stimulation protocol (standard approach); arm 2, standard approach + empirical ablation at common non-PV AF trigger sites (mitral annulus, fossa ovalis, eustachian ridge, crista terminalis, and superior vena cava); or arm 3, standard approach + ablation of left atrial complex fractionated electrogram sites. Patients were seen at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; transtelephonic monitoring was performed at each visit. Antiarrhythmic drugs were discontinued at 3 to 6 months. The primary study end point was freedom from atrial arrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs at 1 year after a single-ablation procedure. A total of 156 patients (aged 59±9 years; 136 males; AF duration, 47±50 months) participated (arm 1, 55 patients; arm 2, 50 patients; arm 3, 51 patients). Procedural outcomes (procedure, fluoroscopy, and PVI times) were comparable between the 3 arms. More lesions were required to target non-PV trigger sites than a complex fractionated electrogram (33±9 versus 22±9; P <0.001). The primary end point was achieved in 71 patients and was worse in arm 3 (29%) compared with arm 1 (49%; P =0.04) and arm 2 (58%; P =0.004). Conclusions— These data suggest that additional substrate modification beyond PVI does not improve single-procedure efficacy in patients with persistent AF. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00379301.