This review article provides an overview on the published clinical risk scores related to outcomes of rhythm control strategy or AF progression
Patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) are commonly managed with rhythm control strategy , but the natural history of this common arrhythmia leads itself to progression from paroxysmal to persistent or permanent AF , and recurrences are evident despite rhythm control treatments using cardioversion or catheter ablation .
Numerous clinical factors have been associated with outcomes of rhythm control or arrhythmia progression in patients with AF .
The more common factors have been used to formulate risk stratification scores , to help predict the outcomes of rhythm control treatments  or AF progression .
Primary Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Distinct Arrhythmia Subentity of an Ablation Population.
INTRODUCTION  Persistent atrial fibrillation ( persAF ) can occur either as a sustained arrhythmia that has progressed from initially paroxysmal AF or as primary persAF without a history of any spontaneously terminated episode . There is a paucity of data differentiating between the 2 different persAF entities . Thus , we prospect ively evaluated baseline characteristics , electrophysiological features , and ablation outcome in these 2 patient cohorts . METHODS AND RESULTS A total number of 154 consecutive persAF patients ( 63 ± 10 years , f = 42 , longst and ing persAF = 60 ) were characterized in terms of having  primary persAF ( P-persAF group ) or persAF that secondarily progressed from paroxysmal AF ( S-persAF group ) . All patients underwent de novo catheter ablation using the stepwise approach . PersAF entities were characterized by detailed patient history , sequential Holter monitoring , and reports of documented modes of AF conversion , respectively . The P-persAF group had a higher number of  young patients ( < 50 years ) , a shorter AF history , and a higher number of congestive heart failure . The HATCH score did not differ between the groups . Procedural AF termination rate was significantly higher in S-persAF than in P-persAF patients ( n = 55 [ 81 % ] vs. n = 58 [ 68 % ] , P = 0.043 ) . At 1-year follow-up , the arrhythmia-free survival after a single procedure was significantly lower in patients with P-persAF ( 26 % vs. 43 % , P = 0.016 ) . Categorization to P-persAF was the strongest independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence . CONCLUSIONS P-persAF seems to be a specific arrhythmia entity that is associated with a lower AF-termination rate and a worse outcome after catheter ablation as compared to S-persAF
This review article provides an overview on the published clinical risk scores related to outcomes of rhythm control strategy or AF progression
Patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) are commonly managed with rhythm control strategy , but the natural history of this common arrhythmia leads itself to progression from paroxysmal to persistent or permanent AF , and recurrences are evident despite rhythm control treatments using cardioversion or catheter ablation .
Numerous clinical factors have been associated with outcomes of rhythm control or arrhythmia progression in patients with AF .
The more common factors have been used to formulate risk stratification scores , to help predict the outcomes of rhythm control treatments  or AF progression .