I have been diagnosed with AF Rapid and Persistent 5 years ago with Stroke and 4th day during a scan Papillary Thyroid Cancer.
I stay out of the actual debate on which ablation is best because of heart structural damage I can't consider one or cardioversion or anti-arrhymic med like Flec..
But I do read the overall debate on those debating to have an ablation vs meds. I have earlier nursing and read medical information by joining research papers. Radcliffe Research is very good.
My own information
Ablation procedures causes scarring - unable for the areas to be returned. Some say the scarring is success because it stops the rogue electrical way.
There is radiation used during the procedure which is not explained. The surgeons who do the procedure wear heavy aprons and some hide behind glass.
The balloon procedure is very successful.. But at one stage the balloon were collapsing.
% of success vary.
A cardiologist who has done ablations and stopped are very knowledgeable.
Its like me being under an Endocrinologist for my papillary cancer. She wanted to wait 6 months after stroke whereas surgeon and anaesthetist said asap. She wanted me to have RAI post op and TSH suppression when I said no and no. My surgeon said to her "we should respect Joy's decision'. No respect was taken over Joy's age 70 nor my heart condition and with AF.
Overall I saw a friend have an ablation - catheter where he discovered that he had two rogue electrcal responses doing on. These two were stopped, my friend relieved at last and tells no AF in 3 years. He was a success story.
Meds vs waiting for a better way to eleviate symptoms.
Always your decision to proceed or not. Ablation is a money making procedure overall and it is important that some push it when the med pathway is another.
cherio jOY. (Tuckie)