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 randomized clinical trial of the efficacy of radiofrequency catheter ablation and amiodarone in the treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation.
The limited efficacy and proarrhythmic risks of antiarrhythmia agents have result ed in alternative therapeutic approaches . Radiofrequency ablation has been reported to be an effective treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation . However , there is no r and omized clinical trial comparing drug and radiofrequency ablation . The authors r and omized 30 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation refractory to medication into amiodarone and radiofrequency ablation .  The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of amiodarone and radiofrequency ablation in the maintenance of sinus rhythm at 1 year after r and omization . Pulmonary vein isolation and linear ablation of right atrium was the technique used for radiofrequency ablation . There were no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics between the 2 groups . The results of this study showed that the probability of free from atrial fibrillation was better in the radiofrequency ablation group compared to amiodarone ( 78.6 % in the ablation group and 40 % in the amiodarone group , p = 0.018 ) . Radiofrequency ablation results in a significant reduction in symptoms relating to atrial fibrillation and a significant improvement in quality of life , whereas amiodarone had no significant effect on symptoms and quality of life . There was an ischemic stroke as a major complication related to radiofrequency ablation . Amiodarone was associated with adverse effects in 46.7 per cent of patients and needed discontinuation in 1 patient . In conclusion , radiofrequency ablation is an effective alternative treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation refractory to medication
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 .