D. Restoration of sinus rhythm for monophasic vs. biphasic waveforms .
Another study showed that PVI result ed in long-term restoration
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is a major public health problem in the United States .
More than 2.3 million Americans are estimated to have AF ( 1 ) .
The known association between AF and substantial mortality , morbidity , and health care costs compounds the effect of this condition .
Not only is the risk for death in patients with AF twice that of patients without it , but AF can result in myocardial ischemia and infa rct ion , exacerbate heart failure ( HF ) , and cause tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy if the ventricular rate is not well-controlled ( 25 ) .
The most dreaded complication of AF is thromboembolism , especially stroke ( 6 ) .
In some patients , AF or therapies to manage this condition can severely depreciate quality of life ( 710 ) .
Furthermore , the management of AF and its complications is responsible for nearly $ 16 billion in additional costs to the U.S. health care system per year ( 11 ) .
We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of rate- versus rhythm-control strategies ;  medications used for ventricular rate control ; strict versus more lenient rate-control strategies ; nonpharmacologic rate-control therapies  versus medications ; electrical cardioversion and antiarrhythmic medications  for restoration of sinus rhythm ;  and  catheter ablation , surgical ablation , and antiarrhythmic medications  for maintenance of sinus rhythm .
Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators.
BACKGROUND The restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is a desirable goal in patients with atrial fibrillation , because the prevention of recurrences can improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms . Uncontrolled studies have suggested that amiodarone in low doses may be more effective and safer than other agents in preventing recurrence , but this agent has not been tested in a large , r and omized trial . METHODS We undertook a prospect i ve , multicenter trial to test the hypothesis that low doses of amiodarone would be more efficacious in preventing recurrent atrial fibrillation than therapy with sotalol or propafenone . We r and omly assigned patients who had had at least one episode of atrial fibrillation within the previous six months to amiodarone or to sotalol or propafenone , given in an open-label fashion . The patients in the group assigned to sotalol or propafenone underwent a second r and omization to determine whether they would receive sotalol or propafenone first ; if the first drug was unsuccessful the second agent was prescribed . Loading doses of the drugs were administered and electrical cardioversion was performed ( if necessary ) within 21 days after r and omization for all patients in both groups . The follow-up period began 21 days after r and omization . The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation . RESULTS Of the 403 patients in the study , 201 were assigned to  amiodarone  and 202 to either sotalol ( 101 patients ) or propafenone ( 101 patients ) . After a mean of 16 months of follow-up , 71 of the patients who were assigned to amiodarone ( 35 percent ) and 127 of those who were assigned to sotalol or propafenone ( 63 percent ) had a recurrence of atrial fibrillation ( P<0.001 ) . Adverse events requiring the discontinuation of drug therapy occurred in 18 percent of the patients receiving amiodarone , as compared with 11 percent of those treated with sotalol or propafenone ( P=0.06 ) . CONCLUSIONS Amiodarone is more effective than sotalol or propafenone for the prevention of recurrences of atrial fibrillation
D. Restoration of sinus rhythm for monophasic vs. biphasic waveforms .
Another study showed that PVI result ed in long-term restoration
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is a major public health problem in the United States .
More than 2.3 million Americans are estimated to have AF ( 1 ) .
The known association between AF and substantial mortality , morbidity , and health care costs compounds the effect of this condition .
Not only is the risk for death in patients with AF twice that of patients without it , but AF can result in myocardial ischemia and infa rct ion , exacerbate heart failure ( HF ) , and cause tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy if the ventricular rate is not well-controlled ( 25 ) .
The most dreaded complication of AF is thromboembolism , especially stroke ( 6 ) .
In some patients , AF or therapies to manage this condition can severely depreciate quality of life ( 710 ) .
Furthermore , the management of AF and its complications is responsible for nearly $ 16 billion in additional costs to the U.S. health care system per year ( 11 ) .
We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of rate- versus rhythm-control strategies ;  medications used for ventricular rate control ; strict versus more lenient rate-control strategies ; nonpharmacologic rate-control therapies  versus medications ; electrical cardioversion and antiarrhythmic medications  for restoration of sinus rhythm ;  and  catheter ablation , surgical ablation , and antiarrhythmic medications  for maintenance of sinus rhythm .