Connect
← Return to What is done for Bradycardia and Tachycardia syndrome- if pacemaker -
Discussion
What is done for Bradycardia and Tachycardia syndrome- if pacemaker -
Heart Rhythm Conditions | Last Active: 22 hours ago | Replies (22)Comment receiving replies
@earther Mary may not return here to reply early enough for your needs, so I hope both of you won't mind my (interim and substituted) reply.
A pacemaker is usually the last resort for a troubled heart that is working poorly........electrically. Even if a heart is in what is horribly termed 'heart failure', a pacemaker can correct a faulty rhythm and bring the heart almost back to it's normal state.....just because it fixes the rhythm. Remember that rhythm in a heart is not just lub-dub. It's actually several structures reacting to several nerve and sequencing signals originating from the sino-atrial node. With four separate chambers acting as pumps, it's not a simple function or process. Naturally, some people feel awful when they have the arrythmia, while some are quite asymptomatic; they have no sensation that anything is wrong, so they feel well, if a bit out of breath of feeling a bit unsteady on their feet for some strange new reason they don't understand.
The pacemaker can correct these faults and restore normal heart function, and with normal rhythm and function comes a rejuvenated heart in many cases. If there was any hypertrophy, it might reverse. It does in some people, not in all. This is an example of what can improve with a pacemaker, not mention that all those nasty symptoms might disappear in a few weeks. This means improved sleep, improved vision, improved cognitive processes, improved mood...you get the idea. So, a pacemaker offers a lot of promise to an ailing heart. Try to look at it that way. As far as I know, and no I don't have one, the implantation takes just a short while, not even real 'day surgery'. It's just a short procedure and you go home inside of a couple of hours.
Replies to "@earther Mary may not return here to reply early enough for your needs, so I hope..."
Connect
@gloaming -- Thanks for replying -- and sorry for the delay. Had no time and then had trouble logging in.
I know the purpose of the pacemaker, and I already have an implanted loop recorder, but a pacemaker is much more serious. Although the procedure might take about 2 hours, they keep you a while to be sure all is OK, so it's several hours. I live in a remote area and don't drive beyond my neighborhood now because of occasional brief blindness episodes caused by my many heart problems (I listed those in response to Mary's reply).
I understand that I might feel much better or have more energy at least with a pacemaker, so that makes me reconsider my objection to it. But I'm 80 with enlarged atrium, diastolic heart failure (HFpEF), and 4 arrhythmias, including AFib, so they'd probably put me on more meds for the AFib and use the pacemaker to keep that / those meds from making my HR even lower than it already is (it does get in normal range during exercise but is dipping to scary levels while asleep).
I already take Eliquis, Spirnolactone, Losartan, and Atorvastatin, all without side effects, at least so far, and they all do what they're supposed to do, thankfully.
But I don't want to take even more meds nor be kept alive by "devices." I also don't want to have a stroke and end up in a "care facility."
And to make it even more worrisome, I live in a remote area with inadequate medical care, especially specialists.
So I'm not sure there is a good choice. It all seems like a gamble because I have so many heart problems, am 80 already, and not in an area with top-notch clinicians nor facilities.
I'm leaning toward going along with the pacemaker, because I've known since 2016 that would probably be inevitable.