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 .
Comparison of rate and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and nonischemic heart failure.
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is a very common cardiac arrhythmia with an increased mortality in patients with heart failure . Whether the best therapeutic approach to these patients is to restore sinus rhythm or to adequately control the ventricular rate is still controversial . The aim of this study was to compare both strategies in patients with AF and nonischemic heart failure . One hundred and fifty-four patients with AF duration greater than 48 hours and nonischemic left ventricular dysfunction were r and omized either to a rhythm ( n = 84 ) or rate ( n = 74 ) control group . The composite end points of the study were embolism , death , and exercise capacity .  The average age of the patients was 61 + /- 10 years in the rhythm control group and 58 + /- 12 years in the rate control group ( P = NS ) . The average follow-up period was 35 + /- 21 months in the rhythm control group and 37 + /- 19 months in the rate control group ( P = NS ) . In the first year of the study , exercise capacity and left ventricular ejection fraction ( LVEF ) were improved in the rhythm control group compared to the exercise capacity and LVEF of the rate control group ( P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005 , respectively ) . There were no statistically significant differences in the embolic event rate between the two groups ( P = NS ) . The mortality rate , especially for death due to pump failure , was significantly higher in the rate control group at the end of the study ( P < 0.0001 ) . Restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm had a beneficial effect on mortality and exercise capacity in patients with nonischemic heart failure and AF
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 .