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 .
Ablation of superior pulmonary veins compared to ablation of all four pulmonary veins:.
INTRODUCTION Isolation of all pulmonary veins ( PV ) is advocated for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( PAF ) . However , the superior PVs are responsible for most AF triggers , whereas the inferior PVs carry the higher risk for ablation-induced ostial stenosis . The aim of this study was to compare a superior PV isolation approach with isolation of all PVs for treatment of PAF . METHODS AND RESULTS Fifty-two patients with PAF were r and omized to either left superior pulmonary vein ( LSPV ) isolation followed by additional isolation of the right superior pulmonary vein ( RSPV ) in case of AF recurrence ( group A , n = 27 ) or isolation of all four PVs followed by a repeat procedure in case of recurrence ( group B , n = 25 ) . At 1-year follow-up , 11 patients ( 41 % ) in group A and 8 patients ( 32 % ) in group B had AF relapse ( P = 0.55 ) . No significant differences in AF relapse were detected between groups at 3 and 12 months ( log rank = 0.36 , P = 0.54 ) and by Cox proportional hazards model analysis ( P = 0.62 ) . Nonsignificant PV stenosis was detected in two patients from group B. Total radiofrequency energy delivery and fluoroscopy and procedure times were lower in group A : 8.9 + /- 1.4 minutes vs 25.6 + /- 3.7 minutes ( P < 0.001 ) , 22.2 + /- 6.8 minutes vs 62 + /- 10.3 minutes ( P < 0.001 ) , and 131.8 + /- 26.5 minutes vs 222.2 + /- 32.3 minutes ( P < 0.001 ) , respectively . CONCLUSION A staged superior PVs isolation approach confers equal success rates but with reduced radiofrequency energy delivery and fluoroscopy and procedure times compared to isolation of all PVs at the initial ablation attempt
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 .