Watchman Procedure

Glad you got a second opinion and hope you choose the Watchman. It's been 3 years with no afib and problems with it. I'm fully satisfied. Plus, it's just an overnight stay in hospital and they kick you out early 😀.

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm pretty resigned to sooner or later!

I’m scheduled for the Watchman 8/29. They asked if I wanted to stay overnight, so I guess it’s not mandatory. I didn’t want to have the procedure, but my husband & doctors convinced me! Your comment helps ease my mind, too!

Good luck to you with your procedure and thereafter. You'll be great!

Going for watchman and 3rd ablation ( this time the pulse field ablation), looking forward to the ablation as this new technology can reach to areas where they couldn’t get to before and does not have to move the esophagus,
Sa for the watchman I just don’t know, already had a stroke 3 years ago, at high risk a 6 on the chads but I feel like Iam being sold a bill of goods.
You still have to take, drugs plavix and asprin and 3 months on a blood thinner, I don’t like the idea of having something in my heart.plus it does not stop you from forming clots,
I have stopped blood thinners a year ago and take baby asprin, can’t tolerate the thinners, get hives an itching and my scalp hurts all not so I can’t sleep.
Fine on asprin, don’t tolerate drugs very well.
Just venting , worried but iam committed to august first, no turning back, feel like Iam hurting my heart for something that has little benifits, just to prevent something that my not happen,
.will let you know

We have missed some important details, csmjj97...? Why a third ablation? Why the elevated CHADS score? Why a Watchman if you still need to take DOAC or aspirin? Or, more like....do you understand that without a Watchman your score might end up higher, or that your risk of a stroke is still high? The Watchman could drop your score, and therefor your risk, down to 2+.

The Watchman won't prevent ALL clots...they can form in many locations after all. But if part of your assessed risk/score makes installation of the device reasonable, why not do it? Literally millions across the globe have had one installed, in some cases obviating the need to take DOAC entirely (this depends on the patient and the caring authority/EP).

You are well within your bounds to object to drugs you don't tolerate, and no reasonable prescribing authority would give you grief over your body's reaction to them. There are often alternatives worth exploring, whether other drugs or surgical intervention. It's always a choice.

The grotto that is the left atrial appendage (LAA) is essentially more a danger than a utility as far as cardiac function is concerned. That is to say, it serves no practical purpose...except that it happens to be a place for blood to pool and to get stale when in arrhythmia. Stale/pooled blood has a tendency to clot, which is never a good thing for people if it happens inside the circulatory system.

Regarding - "Just venting , worried but i am committed to august first, no turning back, feel like I am hurting my heart for something that has little benefits, just to prevent something that my not happen,"

It sounds to me you have serious doubts. If you feel like you are hurting your heart, etc doe nothing, I sure would not go ahead.

If you do, let us know the result.

I think traveling to a skilled and experienced EP is well worth the money and time spent. S/he is literally your life-line. Think of the money you would spend on a vacation. Traveling to an top-notch EP is worth way more than a vacation. Take care of yourself!

Here is an excellent commentary about pulsed field ablation.
COMMENTARY
"Pulsed Field Ablation for AF: Are US Electrophysiologists Too Easily Impressed?"
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/pulsed-field-ablation-af-are-us-electrophysiologists-too-2024a1000d2v?form=fpf

Honestly, when I saw the outcomes about seven/eight months ago, I wondered if it was the purported improvement it was suggested to be. I haven't seen any big wigs, like Santangeli or Natale make public assessments saying they felt they'd stick with RF for now. But neither have any of them gone public with rave reviews. About it's only selling point right now is that it supposedly minimizes risk to the esophagus over RF, meaning that there might be empirical obviation of the TEE as is routine during RF ablation.