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 .
Rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation—Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation (PIAF): a randomised trial
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly encountered sustained cardiac arrhythmia . Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is believed by many physicians to be superior to rate control only . However , there are no prospect i ve data that compare both therapeutic strategies . METHODS The Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation ( PIAF ) trial was a r and omised trial in 252 patients with atrial fibrillation of between 7 days and 360 days duration , which compared rate ( group A , 125 patients ) with rhythm control ( group B , 127 patients ) . In group A , diltiazem was used as first-line therapy and amiodarone was used in group B. The primary study endpoint was improvement in symptoms related to atrial fibrillation . FINDINGS Over the entire observation period of 1 year , a similar proportion of patients reported improvement in symptoms in both groups ( 76 responders at 12 months in group A vs 70 responders in group B , p=0.317 ) . Amiodarone administration result ed in pharmacological restoration of sinus rhythm in 23 % of patients . Walking distance in a 6 min walk test was better in group B compared with group A , but assessment of quality of life showed no differences between groups . The incidence of hospital admission was higher in group B ( 87 [ 69 % ] out of 127 vs 30 [ 24 % ] out of 125 in group A , p=0.001 ) . Adverse drug effects more frequently led to a change in therapy in group B ( 31 [ 25 % ] patients compared with 17 [ 14 % ] in group A , p=0.036 ) . INTERPRETATION With respect to symptomatic improvement in patients with atrial fibrillation , the therapeutic strategies of rate versus rhythm control yielded similar clinical results overall . However , exercise tolerance is better with rhythm control , although hospital admission is more frequent . These data may serve as a basis to select therapy in individual patients
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 .