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 .
Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation Compared With Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Background —Radiofrequency catheter ablation ( RFA ) has emerged as an important treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation ( AF ) . The potential cost-effectiveness of RFA for AF , relative to antiarrhythmic drug ( AAD ) therapy , has not been fully explored from a US perspective . Methods and Results —We constructed a Markov disease simulation model for a hypothetical cohort of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF , treated either with RFA with/without AAD or AAD alone .  Costs and quality -adjusted life-years were projected over 5 years . Model inputs were drawn from published clinical trial and registry data , from new registry and trial data analysis , and from data prospect ively collected from patients with AF treated with RFA at our institution . We assumed no benefit from ablation on stroke , heart failure or death , but did estimate changes in quality -adjusted life expectancy using data from several AF cohorts . In the base case scenario , cumulative costs with the RFA and AAD strategies were $ 26 584 and $ 19 898 , respectively . Over 5 years , quality -adjusted life expectancy was 3.51 quality -adjusted life-years with RFA versus 3.38 for the AAD group . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RFA versus AAD was thus $ 51 431 per quality -adjusted life-year . Model results were most sensitive to time horizon , the relative utility weights of successful ablation versus unsuccessful drug therapy , and to the cost of an ablation procedure . Conclusions —RFA with/without AAD for symptomatic , drug-refractory paroxysmal AF appears to be reasonably cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone from the perspective of the US health care system , based on improved quality of life and avoidance of future health care costs
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 .