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 treatment in patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation: a prospective, multi-centre, randomized, controlled study (Catheter Ablation For The Cure Of Atrial Fibrillation Study).
AIMS We conducted a multi-centre , prospect i ve , controlled , r and omized trial to investigate the adjunctive role of ablation therapy to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in preventing  atrial fibrillation ( AF )  relapses in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF in whom antiarrhythmic drug therapy had already failed . METHODS AND RESULTS One hundred and thirty seven patients were r and omized to ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy ( ablation group ) or antiarrhythmic drug therapy alone ( control group ) . In the ablation group , patients underwent cavo-tricuspid and left inferior pulmonary vein (PV)-mitral isthmus ablation plus circumferential PV ablation . The primary end-point of the study was the absence of any recurrence of atrial arrhythmia lasting > 30 s in the 1-year follow-up period , after 1-month blanking period . Three ( 4.4 % ) major complications were related to ablation : one patient had a stroke during left atrium ablation , another suffered transient phrenic paralysis , and the third had a pericardial effusion which required pericardiocentesis . After 12 months of follow-up , 63/69 ( 91.3 % ) control group patients had at least one AF recurrence , whereas 30/68 ( 44.1 % ) ( P<0.001 ) ablation group patients had atrial arrhythmia recurrence ( four patients had atrial flutter , 26 patients AF ) . CONCLUSION Ablation therapy combined with antiarrhythmic drug therapy is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy alone in preventing atrial arrhythmia recurrences in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF in whom antiarrhythmic drug therapy has already failed
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 .