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 .
Prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus bradycardia: role of right atrial linear ablation and pacing site.
INTRODUCTION Right atrial linear lesions ( RALL ) , either alone or in combination with antiarrhythmic drug therapy , may modify the substrate for maintenance of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) . The aim of this prospect i ve r and omized study was to determine whether RALL provides additional benefit to right atrial appendage pacing ( RAAP ) and /or interatrial septum pacing ( IASP ) and drug therapy in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF and sinus bradycardia requiring permanent atrial pacing . METHODS AND RESULTS Sixty-four patients ( 33 men and 31 women , mean age 73 + /- 10 years ) completed the 6-month follow-up . Patients were r and omized to either RALL ( n = 33 ) or non-right atrial linear lesions ( NRALL ) , and then to either IASP ( n = 32 ) or RAAP ( n = 32 ) . Fifteen RALL patients were paced at the IAS and 18 at the RAA . Seventeen NRALL patients were paced at the IAS and 14 at the RAA . No statistical difference was observed with regard to the mean atrial tachyarrhythmia ( AT ) burden between NRALL ( 84 + /- 169 min/day ) and RALL patients ( 202 + /- 219 min/day ) . Mean AT burden was significantly lower in the IASP group ( 70 + /- 150 min/day ) than in RAAP group ( 219 + /- 317 min/day ; P < 0.016 ) . In the RALL group , the mean AT burden was 99 + /- 180 min/day in the IASP patients and 288 + /- 372 min/day in the RAAP patients ( P < 0.046 ) . In the NRALL group , no statistical difference in the mean AT burden was observed between IASP patients ( 46 + /- 117 min/day ) and RAAP patients ( 130 + /- 211 min/day ) . CONCLUSION The results of the present study indicate that RALL did not provide any additional therapeutic benefit to combined antiarrhythmic drug therapy and septal or nonseptal atrial pacing in patients with sinus bradycardia and paroxysmal 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 .