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 .
Freedom From Atrial Tachyarrhythmias After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Comparison Between 2 Current Ablation Strategies
Background — Data on the comparative value of the circumferential pulmonary vein and the segmental pulmonary vein ablation for interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation are limited . We hypothesized that the circumferential pulmonary vein ablation approach was superior to the segmental pulmonary vein ablation approach . Methods and Results —One hundred patients with highly symptomatic atrial fibrillation were r and omly assigned to undergo either circumferential ( n=50 ) or segmental pulmonary vein ablation ( n=50 ) . Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias in a 7-day Holter monitoring at 6 months was the primary end point . Secondary end points were freedom of arrhythmia-related symptoms and a composite of pericardial tamponade , thromboembolic complications , and pulmonary vein stenosis ( safety end point ) . On the basis of the results of the 7-day Holter monitoring at 6 months , 21 patients ( 42 % ) after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation and 33 patients ( 66 % ) after segmental pulmonary vein ablation ( P=0.02 ) were free of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes . During the 6-month follow-up period , 27 patients ( 54 % ) after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation and 41 patients ( 82 % ) after segmental pulmonary vein ablation remained free of arrhythmia-related symptoms ( P<0.01 ) . No significant difference was found in the safety end point ( 6 versus 7 events ; P=0.77 ) in the circumferential versus segmental pulmonary vein ablation group , respectively . Conclusions —This study demonstrates no superiority of the circumferential pulmonary vein ablation over segmental pulmonary vein ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in terms of efficacy and safety
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 .