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 atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation : one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm , and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs , allowing atrial fibrillation to persist . In both approaches , the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended . METHODS We conducted a r and omized , multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death . The primary end point was overall mortality . RESULTS A total of 4060 patients ( mean [ + /-SD ] age , 69.7+/-9.0 years ) were enrolled in the study ; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension , and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease . Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms , the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent . There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy ( mortality at five years , 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent , respectively ; hazard ratio , 1.15 [ 95 percent confidence interval , 0.99 to 1.34 ] ; P=0.08 ) . More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized , and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well . In both groups , the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic . CONCLUSIONS Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy , and there are potential advantages , such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects , with the rate-control strategy . Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients
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 .