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 .
Changes in Atrial Fibrillation Cycle Length and Inducibility During Catheter Ablation and Their Relation to Outcome
Background —The modification of atrial fibrillation cycle length ( AFCL ) during  catheter ablation in humans has not been evaluated . Methods and Results —Seventy patients undergoing ablation of prolonged episodes of AF were r and omized to pulmonary vein ( PV ) isolation or additional ablation of the mitral isthmus .  Mean AFCL was determined at a distance from the ablated area ( coronary sinus ) at the following intervals : before ablation , after 2- and 4-PV isolations , and after linear ablation . Inducibility of sustained AF ( ≥10 minutes ) was determined before and after ablation . Spontaneous sustained AF ( 715±845 minutes ) was present in 30 patients and induced in 26 ( AFCL , 186±19 ms ) . PV isolation terminated AF in 75 % , with the number of PVs requiring isolation before termination increasing with AF duration ( P = 0.018 ) . PV isolation result ed in progressive or abrupt AFCL prolongation to various extents , depending on the PV : to 214±24 ms ( P < 0.0001 ) when AF terminated and to 194±19 ms ( P < 0.002 ) when AF persisted . The increase in AFCL ( 30±17 versus 14±11 ms ; P = 0.005 ) and the decrease in fragmentation ( 30.0±26.8 % to 10.3±14.5 % ; P < 0.0001 ) were significantly greater in patients with AF termination . Linear ablation prolonged AFCL , with a greater prolongation in patients with AF termination ( 44±13 versus 22±23 ms ; P = 0.08 ) . Sustained AF was noninducible in 57 % after PV isolation and in 77 % after linear ablation . At 7±3 months , 74 % with PV isolation and 83 % with linear ablation were arrhythmia free without antiarrhythmics , which was significantly associated with noninducibility ( P = 0.03 ) with a recurrence rate of 38 % and 13 % in patients with and without inducibility , respectively . Conclusions —AF ablation results in a decline in AF frequency , with a magnitude correlating with termination of AF and prevention of inducibility that is predictive of subsequent clinical outcome
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 .