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 .
Cardiac rate normalization in chronic atrial fibrillation: comparison of long-term efficacy of treatment with amiodarone versus AV node ablation and permanent His-bundle pacing.
Chronic atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is a common arrhythmia with significant morbidity and mortality . AF has been the subject of considerable attention and intensive clinical research in recent years . Current opinion on the management of AF favors the restoration and maintenance of normal ventricular rhythm . This has several potential benefits , including the alleviation of arrhythmia-associated symptoms and hemodynamic improvements . Maintenance of frequents normalization of ventricular rhythm ( NVR ) can be achieved with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or with AV node radiofrequency ablation ( RFA ) and permanent ventricular pacing . Recent interest has focused on the use of class III antiarrhythmic agents , such as amiodarone hydrochloride . This investigation compared amiodarone to AV node RFA and permanent pacing of the His-bundle area in maintaining NVR in patients with resistant chronic AF . After 12 months of treatment with amiodarone ( 200 to 400 mg/d ) 30 % of patients remained in NVR , 30 % were in transitional phase of improvement , and 40 % showed negative effect . Only a few patients in this group developed ocular or hepatic side effects . On one year follow-up was achieved in 100 % of cases without any clinical ly significant side effects being seen . In conclusion , analysis of the results of this study suggests that low-dose amiodarone is well tolerated in the management of chronic AF in a selected patient population . The more aggressive interventional radiofrequency ablation technique is significantly more effective and more reliable in the long-term clinical treatment of drug-resistant AF
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 .