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 .
Management of Newly Detected Atrial Fibrillation: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians
Atrial fibrillation is the most common type of arrhythmia in adults . It is more common as patients age ; the prevalence is 1 % among those younger than age 60 years and increases to more than 8 % in those older than age 80 years . When data are adjusted for age , men are affected more often than women . Cardiac conditions associated with the development of atrial fibrillation are hypertension , rheumatic mitral valve disease , coronary artery disease , and congestive heart failure . Noncardiac causes include hyperthyroidism , hypoxic pulmonary conditions , surgery , and alcohol intoxication . Patients with atrial fibrillation may have symptoms of hemodynamic compromise , such as irregular palpitations and lightheadedness , or more vague symptoms , such as malaise , but may be asymptomatic . Patients with atrial fibrillation are at increased risk for thromboembolic disease . The purpose of this guideline is to make recommendations on the pharmacologic management of newly detected atrial fibrillation in primary care . The target patient population is adult patients with first-detected atrial fibrillation , defined as the presence of symptoms or electrocardiographic evidence of atrial fibrillation . The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association has recommended using first-detected atrial fibrillation regardless of whether it is symptomatic or self-limited , recognizing that there can be uncertainty about the duration of the episode and about previous undetected episodes ( 1 ) . This guideline does not apply to patients with postoperative or postmyocardial infa rct ion atrial fibrillation , patients with class IV heart failure , patients already taking antiarrhythmic drugs , or patients with valvular disease . The target physician audience is internists and family physicians dedicated to primary care . This guideline is based on the accompanying background paper by McNamara and colleagues ( 2 ) and on the evidence report Management of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation ( 3 ) , which was produced by the Johns Hopkins Evidence -based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ( AHRQ ) , Rockville , Maryl and . The American Academy of Family Physicians ( AAFP ) and the American College of Physicians ( ACP ) created this guideline in collaboration . The Joint AAFP/ACP Panel review ed the evidence and developed and grade d the recommendations ( Table 1 ) . The guideline was then approved by both organizations . The guideline makes recommendations in the following areas : rate control versus rhythm control , stroke prevention and anticoagulation , electrical cardioversion versus pharmacologic cardioversion , the role of transesophageal echocardiography in guiding therapy , and maintenance therapy . Table 1 . The Guyatt Approach to Grading Recommendations * Section 1 : Rate Control versus Rhythm Control One of the fundamental questions in the management of atrial fibrillation is whether to attempt cardioversion . The answer to this question depends on whether rate control or rhythm control provides more effective protection from thromboembolic events , improved mortality , better relief of symptoms , or improved quality of life . Another significant clinical question is whether certain population s , such as women , patients with hypertension or congestive heart failure , or young people with structurally healthy hearts , have better outcomes with one or the other strategy . Four studies have compared rate control with rhythm control . The study sample s have generally involved older patients ( > 65 years of age ) , and women and younger patients with healthy hearts and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation have not been well represented ( 5 ) . The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management ( AFFIRM ) trial compared rhythm control versus rate control , and use of anticoagulation was recommended in both arms ( 6 ) . More than 4000 patients who were at least 65 years of age or who had at least 1 risk factor for stroke or death , such as hypertension , diabetes , previous stroke , or poor ventricular function , were followed for a mean of 3.5 years . Slightly more than one third of the patients were enrolled after their first episode of atrial fibrillation , and more than 90 % had had their qualifying episode within the previous 6 weeks . In more than two thirds of patients , the qualifying episode lasted at least 2 days . The average patient age was 70 years . Sixty-one percent of patients were men , and 89 % were white . Seventy-one percent of patients had hypertension , 38 % had coronary heart disease , 18 % had previously had failure of antiarrhythmic therapy , and 12 % had no apparent heart disease ( lone atrial fibrillation ) . Patients were r and omly assigned to rate or rhythm control , and their physicians chose the specific therapies ( pharmacologic first , then nonpharmacologic if needed ) . Anticoagulation was continued indefinitely in the rate-control group and was encouraged in the rhythm-control group but could be stopped at the physician 's discretion if sinus rhythm had been maintained for at least 4 , and preferably 12 , consecutive weeks with antiarrhythmic therapy . The prevalence of sinus rhythm in the rhythm-control group was 82 % , 73 % , and 63 % at 1 , 3 , and 5 years , respectively . The prevalence of sinus rhythm in the rate-control group was 34.6 % at 5 years . The primary end point in the AFFIRM trial , overall mortality , was not statistically significantly different between the groups . However , the rhythm-control strategy was associated with a higher risk for death than the rate-control strategy among older patients , those without congestive heart failure , and those with coronary disease .  Rates of stroke also did not differ between groups ; 70 % of all strokes occurred in patients who had stopped receiving anticoagulation or who had subtherapeutic international normalized ratios ( < 2.0 ) . More hospitalizations were reported in the rhythm-control group ( P < 0.001 ) . Another recent study , the RAte Control versus Electrical cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation ( RACE ) study , r and omly assigned patients to receive aggressive rhythm control or rate control ( 7 ) . This was a smaller study , involving 522 patients ( mean age , 68 years ) . Sixty-four percent of patients were men , 49 % had hypertension , and 27 % had coronary artery disease . All patients had persistent atrial fibrillation lasting less than 1 year and had had at least 1 previous electrical cardioversion ( a maximum of 2 previous cardioversions was permitted for study inclusion ) . The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality , heart failure , thromboembolic complications , bleeding , pacemaker implantation , and severe side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs . Again , no difference was seen between groups in the primary composite end point . As in the AFFIRM study , most of the strokes occurred in patients whose anticoagulation had been halted or patients whose international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic ( < 2.0 ) . In post hoc analysis , a benefit for rate control over rhythm control was seen in patients with hypertension and in women . Since this was a post hoc analysis , these results will need to be confirmed by further studies . Of note , despite an aggressive treatment protocol , at the end of follow-up only 39 % of the patients in the rhythm-control group were in sinus rhythm . The Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation ( PIAF ) trial r and omly assigned 252 patients 18 to 75 years of age with new-onset or permanent symptomatic atrial fibrillation ( mean duration of atrial fibrillation , approximately 4 months ) to rate control with diltiazem or aggressive conversion ( many times if necessary ) and maintenance therapy with amiodarone ( 8) . The primary end point of the study was improvement in symptoms related to atrial fibrillation . After 1 year of follow-up , relief of symptoms was similar in both groups , as were quality -of-life measures . Walking distance was improved in the rhythm-control group , but hospital admissions were more frequent in this group . Although final results are not yet available , preliminary reports of the Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation ( STAF ) trial have been presented ( 9 ) . Patients were r and omly assigned to receive anticoagulation for 3 weeks before conversion and for 4 weeks after attempted conversion , with antiarrhythmic therapy to maintain sinus rhythm , or to long-term anticoagulation and rate control . ( Patients included in this study had at least 1 previous conversion attempt . ) After more than 1.5 years of follow-up , no difference was seen between the groups in rates of the primary end points of death , stroke , transient ischemic attacks , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , or thromboembolism . Of interest , only 40 % of patients in the rhythm-control group were still in sinus rhythm at 1 year , and all primary end points occurred in patients in atrial fibrillation , even in the rhythm-control group . This result has created speculation about whether fewer events would have occurred if anticoagulation had been continued indefinitely in the conversion group . It also suggests that despite aggressive rhythm management , a substantial number of patients can not maintain sinus rhythm . In general , the trial sample s were older and male and had risk factors for stroke , such as hypertension , congestive heart failure , and coronary disease . Certain subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation , such as younger patients with healthy hearts or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation , were not well represented in the trials . Therefore , it is not certain whether these subgroups of patients may benefit from more aggressive rhythm control or rate control . Recommendation 1 : Rate control with chronic anticoagulation is the recommended strategy for the majority of patients with atrial fibrillation . Rhythm control has not been shown to be superior to rate control ( with chronic anticoagulation ) in reducing morbidity and mortality and may be inferior in some patient subgroups to rate control . Rhythm
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 .