Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Hi, I know someone who has a manual defibrillitator, he has had it for six years. Now it has stopped working and he is in A-fib all the time waiting for an ablation. It is probably better to try the ablation first. Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 In a message dated 4/18/06 4:36:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, quarteracreorchids@... writes: > I guess my overall feeling is that if they were effective and safe, they > would be commonplace by now... but they're not.... > Thanks for the info Stef. I learn a lot here. I wonder why they're available in Europe but not here. That seems odd to me. And my doctor won't even bother with cardioverting me ... I got desperate 2 months in to this seemingly chronic state and she said " why bother, it won't last anyway? " which rather annoyed me. I believe my response was a rather rude " because it's not YOU trying to live with popcorn going off in your chest and such fatigue you can barely move " ... oh well. Am trying to live with my lack of options ... to me, ANY pacemaker option seems like a last resort and such a major and expensive undertaking that I'd like to avoid it. Dr. Natale already told me I'd be on a pacemaker within 10 years because of the damage the other doctor did during the SVT ablation ... so it seems to be in my future no matter what I wish. A-fib sucks. Toni CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Toni - they apparently do have atrial defibrillators in Europe, but they are " manual " (according to my cardio) meaning that the wearer of such has to recognize they are in afib and push the button themselves to get the shock. It is also my understanding, again from my health care professional, that the shock hurts like the dickens and that people who have them would rather stay in afib than shock themselves! This was suggested to me at one point in my afib history (I'm not sure seriously, since they aren't available in the US). I opted for the PVI instead.. I don't like the idea of a piece of equipment implanted in my body.. that would be a last resort for me. I also wonder about the effectiveness of these over the long term... for those of us who's afib progressed rapidly, we know that while we can get shocked rather indefinitely, it comes to a point where a cardioversion doesn't " hold " and at some point the doctor or ER is going to say " enough " .. you're in permanent afib now. Prior to my PVI I had several cardioversions in less than a week.. I think my own doctor was getting to the point of " enough " and the only reason they agreed to continue with them was that I had the PVI already scheduled. I cannot imagine shocking myself 3 or 4 times a week, personally. And cardioversion is not without it's own risks, although minute... what happens if you shock yourself in the comfort of your own home and go into some funky rhythm, or worse, have a heart attack... I guess my overall feeling is that if they were effective and safe, they would be commonplace by now... but they're not.... Stef indiaink99@... wrote: I'd feel safer with an implantable atrial defibrillator. -------------- Jo Anne, there is no such thing (to my knowledge) as an implantable atrial defibrillator. Implantable defibrillators are for VENTRICULAR fibrillation, which can kill in moments, NOT for atrial fibrillation. Yes, the atria tell the ventricles when to beat, but the pacemaker is for the ventricals only and not for the irregular beats caused by a-fib. Most pacemakers don't even have atrial fibrillation suppression mode, and those that do don't work well (from reports). You may not feel the a-fib with a pacemaker, but it's still going on and carries the same risks. The pacemaker just makes the ventricles beat more regularly, but the atria are still going nutso. Toni CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 I have read that the Food & Drug Distraction, that also oversees medical devices, has had a problem with the medicinal devices. Basically, it is the drug companies that swing their weight there. The drug companies would want to hold off the devices until they get all the money they can out of the drugs used before the devices. Lately, they have been setting up a separate administration to be in charge of the medical devices. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/business/07device.html?ex=1145505600&en=a1512a\ dd18d30574&ei=5070 Jo Anne implantable defibs - Toni Toni - they apparently do have atrial defibrillators in Europe, but they are " manual " (according to my cardio) meaning that the wearer of such has to recognize they are in afib and push the button themselves to get the shock. It is also my understanding, again from my health care professional, that the shock hurts like the dickens and that people who have them would rather stay in afib than shock themselves! This was suggested to me at one point in my afib history (I'm not sure seriously, since they aren't available in the US). I opted for the PVI instead.. I don't like the idea of a piece of equipment implanted in my body.. that would be a last resort for me. I also wonder about the effectiveness of these over the long term... for those of us who's afib progressed rapidly, we know that while we can get shocked rather indefinitely, it comes to a point where a cardioversion doesn't " hold " and at some point the doctor or ER is going to say " enough " .. you're in permanent afib now. Prior to my PVI I had several cardioversions in less than a week.. I think my own doctor was getting to the point of " enough " and the only reason they agreed to continue with them was that I had the PVI already scheduled. I cannot imagine shocking myself 3 or 4 times a week, personally. And cardioversion is not without it's own risks, although minute... what happens if you shock yourself in the comfort of your own home and go into some funky rhythm, or worse, have a heart attack... I guess my overall feeling is that if they were effective and safe, they would be commonplace by now... but they're not.... Stef indiaink99@... wrote: I'd feel safer with an implantable atrial defibrillator. -------------- Jo Anne, there is no such thing (to my knowledge) as an implantable atrial defibrillator. Implantable defibrillators are for VENTRICULAR fibrillation, which can kill in moments, NOT for atrial fibrillation. Yes, the atria tell the ventricles when to beat, but the pacemaker is for the ventricals only and not for the irregular beats caused by a-fib. Most pacemakers don't even have atrial fibrillation suppression mode, and those that do don't work well (from reports). You may not feel the a-fib with a pacemaker, but it's still going on and carries the same risks. The pacemaker just makes the ventricles beat more regularly, but the atria are still going nutso. Toni CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 you said it!... but on the bright side, medicine is advancing so quickly, that maybe in 10 years, they'll have those Star Trek thingies that they just wave over you and " wa-la... all better! " .... we can only hope! indiaink99@... wrote: In a message dated 4/18/06 4:36:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, quarteracreorchids@... writes: > I guess my overall feeling is that if they were effective and safe, they > would be commonplace by now... but they're not.... > Thanks for the info Stef. I learn a lot here. I wonder why they're available in Europe but not here. That seems odd to me. And my doctor won't even bother with cardioverting me ... I got desperate 2 months in to this seemingly chronic state and she said " why bother, it won't last anyway? " which rather annoyed me. I believe my response was a rather rude " because it's not YOU trying to live with popcorn going off in your chest and such fatigue you can barely move " ... oh well. Am trying to live with my lack of options ... to me, ANY pacemaker option seems like a last resort and such a major and expensive undertaking that I'd like to avoid it. Dr. Natale already told me I'd be on a pacemaker within 10 years because of the damage the other doctor did during the SVT ablation ... so it seems to be in my future no matter what I wish. A-fib sucks. Toni CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 That is the way things should be. But too often, there are issues of money involved, and maneuvering for the inside track. So what is approved is not necessarily what should be, and what is not approved is not necessarily what shouldn't be. No one yet has been able to explain to me why we don't have implantable atrial defibrillators in the United States. If they had a good reason, they should have given it. Jo Anne implantable defibs - Toni . . . . I guess my overall feeling is that if they were effective and safe, they would be commonplace by now... but they're not.... Stef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.