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 .
A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND Maintenance of sinus rhythm is the main therapeutic goal in patients with atrial fibrillation . However , recurrences of atrial fibrillation and side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs offset the benefits of sinus rhythm . We hypothesized that ventricular rate control is not inferior to the maintenance of sinus rhythm for the treatment of atrial fibrillation . METHODS We r and omly assigned 522 patients who had persistent atrial fibrillation after a previous electrical cardioversion to receive treatment aim ed at rate control or rhythm control . Patients in the rate-control group received oral anticoagulant drugs and rate-slowing medication . Patients in the rhythm-control group underwent serial cardioversions and received antiarrhythmic drugs and oral anticoagulant drugs . The end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes , heart failure , thromboembolic complications , bleeding , implantation of a pacemaker , and severe adverse effects of drugs . RESULTS After a mean ( + /-SD ) of 2.3+/-0.6 years , 39 percent of the 266 patients in the rhythm-control group had sinus rhythm , as compared with 10 percent of the 256 patients in the rate-control group . The primary end point occurred in 44 patients ( 17.2 percent ) in the rate-control group and in 60 ( 22.6 percent ) in the rhythm-control group . The 90 percent ( two-sided ) upper boundary of the absolute difference in the primary end point was 0.4 percent ( the prespecified criterion for noninferiority was 10 percent or less ) . The distribution of the various components of the primary end point was similar in the rate-control and rhythm-control groups . CONCLUSIONS Rate control is not inferior to rhythm control for the prevention of death and morbidity from cardiovascular causes and may be appropriate therapy in patients with a recurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion
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 .