“Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%)…”
According to the stud below, cardiac ablation (CA) and afib drugs both carry real risks of serious adverse events. According to the study linked below the level of risks differ but no one disputes that thousands of patients who undergo either of CA or drug therapy will experience serious adverse events. Why would anyone want to risk “serious adverse events” if they didn’t have to?
I am a long-term myeloma survivor who was diagnosed with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy.
I developed chronic afib in the fall of 2010. I don’t like the feeling of being short of breath or living with an increased risk of stroke.
But I do know what it’s like to suffer from short, long-term and late stage side effects from conventional (FDA approved) therapies. I have lived with a variety of treatment-related adverse events for years.
I maintain a healthy weight, cholesterol, and blood pressure through nutrition, frequent, moderate exercise and other lifestyle therapies. Sauna is a great way to reduce my blood pressure, detoxify and relax. But that’s another blog post.
Did you know that there are numerous nutritional supplements that are known to reduce the risk of stroke?
My primary goal is writing this blog post is to offer afib patients a third option to the study below. And that third option is to get serious about your health. Let me be clear. You must work closely with your cardiologist and take your health seriously. But living a long life with chronic afib can be done. And reducing your risk of stroke through evidence-based, non-toxic, non-conventional therapies can be done.
Have you developed afib? Scroll down the page, post a question or comment and I will reply to you ASAP.
Thank you,
David Emerson
- MM Survivor
- MM Coach
- Director PeopleBeatingCancer
“Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk.
Purpose: To compare benefits and harms between CA and drug therapy in adult patients with AF and HF.
Data Synthesis: 6 RCTs involving 775 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with drug therapy, AF ablation reduced all-cause mortality (9.0% vs. 17.6%; risk ratio [RR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.81]) and HF hospitalizations (16.4% vs. 27.6%; RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.39 to 0.93]). Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-minute walk test distance (mean difference, 20.93 m [CI, 5.91 to 35.95 m]), peak oxygen consumption (Vo2max) (mean difference, 3.17 mL/kg per minute [CI, 1.26 to 5.07 mL/kg per minute]), and quality of life (mean difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, −9.02 points [CI, −19.75 to 1.71 points]). Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.68 [CI, 0.58 to 4.85]).
Limitation: Results driven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of patient-level data, open-label trial designs, and heterogeneous follow-up length among trials.
Conclusion: CA was superior to conventional drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality of life, with no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events.”
