ablasion vs. pacemaker

My father is 73 years old.  We are trying to figure out if we should go direclty to the insertion of a pacemaker vs. an ablasion procedure.  Since ablasion procedure may need to be repeated and flecainide (drug after ablasion) is questionable, should we just go directly to the pacemaker?
thank you

[tom_h]

In my opinion, I guess it would depend on a lot of things.  You didn't say what this procedure would be for?  Does he have any underlying conditions.  How "old" of a 73 is he?  I know 73 year old men who run, ski, and do other active hobbies where a pacemaker might be troublesome.  Another factor is cost of the procedures.  Would they be covered under his Medicare and any supplemental insurance?  I have an 84 year old friend who just had an ablation for A-Fib., and she's doing great.  Ablation therapy is not a dangerous life threatening procedure for most people.  Depending on his problem, ablation therapy might be something certainly worth looking at.

[littlegreenman1]

And @Tom.  I'd suppose a pacemaker would be more invasive and difficult than ablation. (just me guessing - if you'd like to check my medical credentials - they're the same as my cat - and she's stupid)

But I like Tom's call here: how old a 73-year old we have here? My inlaws are getting there and they're the biking-hiking-est people you'd meet... and what is insurance going to say. Both procedures are going to cost a ton. (even in co-pay)

[merileegal]

I agree with everything said. In addition, is your father seeing a regular cardio or is he seeing an ep who specializes in rhythm problems? My ep  told me he's done ablations for people in their 90's.