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 .
Randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control in persistent atrial fibrillation: the Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) study.
OBJECTIVES This study was design ed to compare two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation(AF ) :  rhythm-control ( restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm ) and rate-control ( pharmacologic or invasive rate-control and anticoagulation ) . BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia . It is unclear whether a strategy of rhythm- or rate-control is better in terms of mortality , morbidity , and quality of life . METHODS The Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation ( STAF ) multicenter pilot trial r and omized 200 patients ( 100 per group ) with persistent AF to rhythm- or rate-control .  The combined primary end point was a combination of death , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , cerebrovascular event , and systemic embolism . RESULTS After 19.6 + /- 8.9 months ( range 0 to 36 months ) there was no difference in the primary end point between rhythm-control ( 9/100 ; 5.54%/year ) and rate-control ( 10/100 ; 6.09%/year ; p = 0.99 ) . The percentage of patients in sinus rhythm in the rhythm-control group after up to four cardioversions during the follow-up period ( rate-control group ) was 23 % ( 0 % ) at 36 months . Eighteen primary end points occurred in atrial fibrillation ; only one occurred in sinus rhythm ( p = 0.049 ) . CONCLUSIONS The STAF pilot study showed no differences between the two treatment strategies in all end points except hospitalizations . These data suggest that there was no benefit in attempting rhythm-control in these patients with a high risk of arrhythmia recurrence . It remains unclear whether the results in the rhythm-control group would have been better if sinus rhythm had been maintained in a higher proportion of patients , as all but one end point occurred during AF
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 .