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 .
Prophylactic cavotricuspid isthmus block during atrial fibrillation ablation in patients without atrial flutter: a randomised controlled trial
Objectives : This r and omised trial evaluated if patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and no history of atrial flutter ( AFL ) had any benefit of prophylactic cavotricuspid isthmus block ( CTIB ) in addition to circumferential pulmonary vein ablation ( CPVA ) . Methods : 149 patients with AF ( 54 % paroxysmal ) were r and omised to CPVA and CTIB  ( group CTIB+ , n = 73 ) or  CPVA alone  ( group CTIB− , n = 76 ) . Patients were followed for 12 months with repetitive 7-day Holter monitoring after 3 , 6 and 12 months . Results : Six patients ( 4 % ) had cardiac tamponade , and one patient had a stroke . No difference was found in the cumulative AFL-free rate between the two treatment groups ( CTIB+ : 88 % vs CTIB− : 84 % , hazard ratio ( HR ) 0.80 , 95 % CI ( 0.34 to 1.90 ) , p = 0.61 ) . There was no difference in the cumulative AF-free rate between the groups ( CTIB+ : 34 % vs CTIB− : 32 % , HR 0.93 , 95 % CI ( 0.63 to 1.38 ) , p = 0.71 ) . Overall , 33 % of the patients were free of AF after a single procedure . Including re procedures , a complete or partial beneficial effect was noted in 62 % of the patients at 12 months . At 12-month follow-up , 24 ( 50 % ) patients with documented AF or AFL in the Holter recordings were asymptomatic . Conclusions : It was not possible to demonstrate any beneficial effect of CTIB in addition to CPVA with regard to AFL or AF recurrences during follow-up . Repetitive long-term Holter monitoring demonstrated a 33 % rate of freedom from AF during a 1-year follow-up . Including additional CPVA procedures , a clinical effect was noted in 62 % of the patients at 12 months . Patients with AF or AFL recurrences were often asymptomatic
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 .