When is Dangerous?

[JoKelly]

Having had paroxysmal AFib for a few years, treated with Flecainide and blood thinners, I underwent two ablations, both of which failed, in that the AFib returned a few months later.

Then the rhythm altered suddenly to a regular but very rapid beat of 133, alternating with AFib.  The first time it went away, but the second time I was put in hospital and diagnosed with atrial tachycardia (someone mentioned a complicated SVT).  After three days at this rate, I had to have a pacemaker.

I read here of beats up to 160 not considered dangerous, so I wonder why I was so swiftly given the pacemaker...

[JoKelly]

Always feel better when comparing notes and I thank you so much for your concern and prayers.  I find it harder to pray for myself than others somehow during these times of adjustment.  I am now 71 years old (say it quickly) but I don't think this affects decisions here in the UK.  Up until these problems I was looking much younger, was fit and active and regularly travelling to the States to visit my daughter who lives there.  Feels like running into a brick wall all of a sudden and unexpectedly!

The doctors here certainly seemed to feel that any resting heart rate above 120 makes the heart work too hard and risks an attack.  By my day three, they wouldn't wait any longer to see if the drugs were going to work and I was effectively steered toward the pacemaker decision.  So I find it interesting that the same concern is not always shown to others.  Maybe what is dangerous is a subjective opinion!

I do feel part of this forum by now and am glad of your invitation to stay on, although I thought having a pacemaker would take me out of the subject area.

[DeltaDawn23]

May I ask your age -- I'm sure you posted it, but I don't remember.  I am 68 and when I go into Afib with a resting rate of 180, they don't seem in any hurry to get me in for the cardioversion.  Last time was 39 hours, but I have waited 3 days with the higher heart rate.  I suppose it depends, as Jerry and Tom said above, on your particular circumstances.  It does seem like the high heart rate cannot be good.  I think you still belong on this forum -- hope to see your postings and know how you are.  Keeping you close to my heart and in my prayers.  Do keep us posted.

[JoKelly]

Many thanks for your replies.  I suppose I must now take age into consideration and live accordingly (how did that happento Miss Aldershot 1956?).  My heart is still jumpy and wants to do its own thing, although it is being restrained by the Flecainide and hopefully now, the pacemaker.  They want me to remain in sinus until the AV node is ablated in a few weeks time and then I suppose, it will be allowed to do its worst within marked boundaries, or they will decide to try and maintain sinus with drugs.  I have a load of questions to ask now and am jotting them down as I think of them.  

Thank you for your interest and I will post here from time to time, although I suppose now I belong to a different type of forum, maybe a pacemaker one.

[Jerry_NJ]

Right, I agree (as always) with Tom.  

A HR of 160 at our age is above the "maximum"..but for someone 20, say, with a maximum (average) HR of 170 or more can deal with short periods, even hours, of 160.  We seniors can't.  I'm using the average maximum HR equals 220-age times a factor of 80 to 90%.  

I am sure your doctors gave very serious consideration to all the facts that are specific to you, not averages, and decided a pacemaker was the best action to take.  I know two people a bit older than me who have pacemakers and while they can't run a marathon, they get around just fine.

[tom_h]

Jo, I've been following your issue, so I know your background.  My guess is that considering your age and the rather unpredictable state of your heart's rhythm, they felt it best to install a pacemaker.  A rate of 130 for days on end is probably not good for anyone and it probably looked like your rate wasn't going to go down.  Hope you're feeling better!