Posted by Newman on November 27, 2003 at 15:46:32:
In Reply to: Re: Should I just go for it? posted by Carley Mill on November 25, 2003 at 16:57:58:
Carley, Steve, Henry, and Others,Steve: Surprise! One of the many improvements in ablations during the past year or two is that the procedure time has been shortened dramatically. At Mayo Clinic two and one-half years ago I was told that the procedure might last 12 hours. I was on the table less than four hours during my recent ablation by Dr. Natale, and the actual ablation procedure took less than two hours. One happy result of this much shorter procedure time is that they do not use a bladder catheter anymore. As I said, the procedure is much more patient friendly.
Henry: Another of the dramatic recent improvements in the ablation procedure at Cleveland Clinic is the use of the ICE, or Intracardiac Echocardiogram. This is a catheter that is inserted thru a vein in the neck and shows the EP a real time view inside the heart. It is like a TV camera inside the heart, and allows very precise positioning of all instruments. It has added a new measure of precision to the ablation, and since the burns are now so precise, the stenosis problem has almost completely vanished. Ablations are now done with precision by the best centers, thus the University of Michigan's 88% success rate with their newest procedure.
As I stated before, these results are being seen with the best doctors at the best centers. An afibber would be making a big mistake having either an ablation or a Maze done by a doctor who is still "in training".
Would a person that had the Maze, and then required a touchup ablation for a cure, be in the 98% success rate group for the Maze statistics, or would that person be in the 2% group that was not cured by the Maze? Maybe if that person had had an ablation first, then maybe that person would not have even had to have the Maze procedure.
Maybe someone could advise Carley on this board of the complication rates of the Maze, and go over some of the more common complications. Do they still stop the heart for a period of time as they used to do during the Maze in years past, or have they found a way now to avoid this nasty little problem? In fairness to Carley, the risks should be outlined in detail.
Ablations at the best centers using the best EPs now have a very high success rate with a very, very small complication rate. They are fast, easy on the patient and patient friendly. Recovery time is measured in hours instead of days, weeks, or months. For those with lone atrial fibrillation and no other problems, it is my opinion that having a Maze is like killing an ant with a sledge hammer. A couple of years ago, Maze was a better choice than ablation. I don't think so today.
Dramatic progress has been made recently in ablations. Most afibbers and many cardiologists are not aware of this progress. They need to know.
Best of luck to all of us in getting cured.
Newman