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 of atrial fibrillation in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2: results from a randomized study comparing pulmonary vein isolation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
INTRODUCTION Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and diabetes mellitus type 2 ( DM2 ) often coexist ; however , a small number of patients with DM2 undergoing catheter ablation ( CA ) of AF  have been included in previous studies . The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of ablation therapy in DM2 patients with drug refractory AF . METHODS AND RESULTS From January 2005 to September 2006 , 70 patients with a diagnosis of DM2 and paroxysmal ( n = 29 ) or persistent ( n = 41 ) AF were r and omized to receive either pulmonary vein isolation or a new antiarrhythmic drug treatment ( ADT ) with a 1-year follow-up . The primary endpoint was the time to first AF recurrence . By Kaplan-Meier analysis , at the end of follow-up , 42.9 % of patients in the ADT group and 80 % of patients who received a single ablation procedure and were without medications were free of AF ( P = 0.001 ) . In the ablation group , a significant improvement in quality -of-life ( QoL ) scores as compared with ADT group was observed . Six patients in the ADT group ( 17.1 % ) developed significant adverse drug effects . Hospitalization rate during follow-up was higher in the ADT group ( P = 0.01 ) . The only complication attributable to ablation was one significant access-site hematoma . CONCLUSION In patients with DM2 , CA of AF provides significant clinical benefits over the ADT and appears to be a reasonable approach regarding feasibility , effectiveness , and low procedural risk
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 .