Frequently, low voltage areas (LVAs) and diastolic potentials (DPs) are present at ablation sites in sinus rhythm in patients with idiopathic premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). Validate these findings as substrates for PVCs and evaluate the feasibility of a simplified substrate approach based on LVAs and DPs for ablation of idiopathic outflow tract PVCs, in patients with a low PVC burden during the procedure. Prospective single-arm clinical trial at two centers with comparison with a historical group, matched to age and gender. The study group consisted of consecutive patients referred for ablation of frequent idiopathic PVCs with inferior axis, that presented with less than two PVCs/min in first 5 min of the procedure. The ablation was based on fast mapping of the right ventricular outflow tract in sinus rhythm looking for LVAs and DPs, defined as isolated small amplitude potentials occurring after the T wave of the surface echocardiogram. The area with LVAs and DPs was tagged, and a simplified activation mapping of the PVCs was done in that area. The procedure time, success rate, and recurrence rate were compared with the historical group in whom ablation was performed based on activation and pace mapping only. A validation group without PVCs was also studied to assess the prevalence of LVAs and DPs in the general population. The study (n = 38), historical (n = 38), and validation (n = 38) groups did not differ in relation to age or gender. Prevalence of LVAs and DPs was significantly higher in the study group in comparison with the validation group, respectively, 71% versus 11%, p < 0.0001 and 87% versus 8%, p < 0.0001. Procedure time was significantly lower in the study group when comparing to the historical group, 130 (100-164) versus 183 (160-203) min, p < 0.0001 and the success rate was significantly higher, 90% versus 64%, p = 0.013. The recurrence rate in patients with a successful ablation was not significantly different between both groups, Log-rank = 0.125. The prevalence of LVAs and DPs was significantly higher in the study group than in the validation group. The proposed approach proved to be feasible, faster, and more efficient than the historical approach.