There is limited evidence to suggest which ablation method was the best .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CA may be a better treatment option compared to medical therapies in the management of persistent AF .
This review was also unable to recommend the best CA method
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia seen in cardiovascular departments .
Treatments include medical interventions and catheter ablation .
Due to uncertainties in medical therapies for AF , and the need to continue sinus rhythm , ablation has been recently considered as a viable alternative .
Many new ablation methods based on pulmonary vein isolation ( PVI ) have been developed .
OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of  catheter ablation ( CA ) in comparison with medical treatment in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF .
The secondary objective was to determine the best regimen of CA .
Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study
Background — The mainstay of treatment for atrial fibrillation ( AF ) remains pharmacological ; however , catheter ablation has increasingly been used over the last decade . The relative merits of each strategy have not been extensively studied . Methods and Results — We conducted a r and omized multicenter comparison of these 2 treatment strategies in patients with paroxysmal AF resistant to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug . The primary end point was absence of recurrent AF between months 3 and 12 , absence of recurrent AF after up to 3 ablation procedures , or changes in antiarrhythmic drugs during the first 3 months . Ablation consisted of pulmonary vein isolation in all cases , whereas additional extrapulmonary vein lesions were at the discretion of the physician . Crossover was permitted at 3 months in case of failure . Echocardiographic data , symptom score , exercise capacity , quality of life , and AF burden were evaluated at 3 , 6 , and 12 months by the supervising committee . Of 149 eligible patients , 112 ( 18 women [ 16 % ] ; age , 51.1±11.1 years ) were enrolled and r and omized to ablation ( n=53 ) or “ new ” antiarrhythmic drugs alone or in combination ( n=59 ) . Crossover from the antiarrhythmic drugs and ablation groups occurred in 37 ( 63 % ) and 5 patients ( 9 % ) , respectively ( P=0.0001 ) . At the 1-year follow-up , 13 of 55 patients ( 23 % ) and 46 of 52 patients ( 89 % ) had no recurrence of AF in the antiarrhythmic drug and ablation groups , respectively ( P<0.0001 ) . Symptom score , exercise capacity , and quality of life were significantly higher in the ablation group . Conclusion — This r and omized multicenter study demonstrates the superiority of catheter ablation over antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with AF with regard to maintenance of sinus rhythm and improvement in symptoms , exercise capacity , and quality of life
There is limited evidence to suggest which ablation method was the best .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CA may be a better treatment option compared to medical therapies in the management of persistent AF .
This review was also unable to recommend the best CA method
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia seen in cardiovascular departments .
Treatments include medical interventions and catheter ablation .
Due to uncertainties in medical therapies for AF , and the need to continue sinus rhythm , ablation has been recently considered as a viable alternative .
Many new ablation methods based on pulmonary vein isolation ( PVI ) have been developed .
OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of  catheter ablation ( CA ) in comparison with medical treatment in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF .
The secondary objective was to determine the best regimen of CA .