I'm 70 and have been in afib since last May/June. Before that, as of 2000, I was diagnosed with
paroxysmalParoxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (psvt) afib and placed on
AtenololAtenolol
Atenolol-chlorthalidone. I have seen a cardiologist and a rhythm specialist who are urging me to decide between two option treatments: continue my
warfarinWarfarin
Warfarin sodium and take
amiodaroneAmiodarone
Amiodarone hydrochloride or have the ablation procedure. I do not have symptoms and have had all the tests that show a "
normalNormal saline flush" heart plus cardio version and
flecainideFlecainide
Flecainide acetate, which did not help. I am in afib all the time; the only way I discovered this was by checking my heart rate at the gym while cycling: the monitor was showing my heart rate going all over the place instead a being steady as it was before May, 2006.
Question: The doctors in this forum and others suggest basically, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." How viable is this third option, especially given that my 5 older siblings and mother had the same condition and that the brother next in age to me is having open heart surgery this week- blockage and valves. I was told that afib is not life threatening but after a while, wouldn't it affectt the heart?
Afib can be hard to ablate so if you go that direction go to a REALLY good clinic.
My brother just had an ablation for flutter that he was in all the time. He's 64. It appears to have worked. He wasn't symptomatic either but he likes to ski. Skiing and blood thinners just don't mix.
If your heart is in generally good shape and you want to be active an ablation is a real viable option but a bit more risky. One has to weigh lifestyle issues. If it were me I would want the ablation because I don't like the idea of my blood being thinned.
Cost benefit analysis is about the only way to make the decision. Good luck.