• Freedom from Atrial fibrillation
  
• Rhythm at 12 months
  
• MACE at 1 and 3 months
  

• Functional and qualitative improvement in heart failure, ejection fraction, left atrial size, exercise tolerance
  
• Rhythm at 3, 6 and 9 months
  
• All other adverse events
  

Surgery has been used as a treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) for more than 20 years. Although highly successful, it has not been widely adopted because operations designed to cure AF require extensive cutting and suturing of the heart, inflicting a significant risk on the patient. Newer technologies now permit the surgeon to create similar scars on the heart as cutting, but much more quickly and safely than before.

Over the last ten years at least six different devices have been developed, each of which can scar the heart: Microwave, radiofrequency, ultrasound, laser and cold are some of them. Although there are many papers in the literature studying these devices, each seems to cure about 80% of patients with very low risk of morbidity and/or mortality. This leaves the surgeon with almost no basis upon which to base his or her selection of a device: Which is the best? Which should be used? Therefore, a comparison study is like this is desperately needed.

At the time of the surgery, surgeon who perform the AF treatment, he or she will select one of the six devices mentioned above at randomly assigned earlier, at the time of the enrollment. The device will be used to make scars on your heart exactly as described in the manufacturer’s instructions and according to the surgeon’s experience. The operation will then be completed per routine. In other words, the only part of the procedure that will be done differently from any other is that the actual device chosen to perform the ablation will vary from one study subject to another.

Patients will be followed up upto one year with EKGs, Holter monitors, MRI's, 6 minute walk tests, echocardiograms, blood tests like bNP and quality of life questionnaires.