Pulse field ablation

@sjm46 thanks so much for sharing. I have done the same thing as you since my diagnosis and in and out of afib, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia in 2021 I have stopped all alcohol, caffeine, gluten and exercise and eat healthy. I am on blood thinners and metoprolol. They tried sotalol but it did not work for me and made me feel terrible. I am praying this works. I feel well even in atrial tachycardia which is what I am mostly in but my atria is enlarged. Praying!

@wews I wish you great success! May you enjoy a couple of decades at least free from any further heart arrhythmia problems.

Hi I notice when I drink coffee 2 cups or have sugar donuts it trigger my AFIB within 1/2 hour it takes almost a full day for it to go away
has anyone else experience it ?
Hope this helps

@gloaming I totally agree with you! I didn't read the suggested study but I have read pros and cons of PFA; in the big scheme of things, it is still fairly new and long term studies will have to be reviewed BUT I asked for PFA because of its safety issues (in my opinion.) And the most important part is the skill and experience of the electrophysiologist and his team. I feel like I truly got a winner! My doc was one of the top 10 in my area, highly praised by patients and my cardiologist and I went to a A+ rated surgical facility. I could not have asked for better care. I am beyond pleased!

@bigj honestly now that you say it I do notice some arythmia alerts if I eat any sugar. I don’t eat much of it but I wonder if there is a connection. I don’t drink caffeine at all. Only herbal tea

@gloaming thanks so much!

@wews If PFA has a 85% success rate, who wouldn't take those chances? As for "not superior" in results, that doesn't mean it isn't just as good and it is safer! I am more than happy I insisted on PFA.

@sjm46 The point is that it does not have a 85% success rate because, as the citation says, it is no better (currently) than RF, and RF ablation only has a 75% success rate (some sources saying it is lower, closer to 68%). If RF has a 70-75% success rate, and the citation is correct, that PFA is not significantly (statistically) superior to RF, then PFA cannot have an 85% success rate. QED.
https://biologyinsights.com/what-is-the-afib-ablation-success-rate/
This study is actually quite dismal, indicating only 56% success for first ablations:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146280622000585
This one says it's closer to 90%:
https://medtigo.com/news/refined-rf-based-ablation-techniques-show-high-success-rates-for-treating-afib/
Whatever you want to pin it at, say an average of about 75%, the first citation in the previous post says that PFA is not statistically more efficacious than RF. What PFA does have is less risk due to less tissue damage, or potential damage to the phrenic nerve and to the esophagus. That, alone would make PFA more desirable for the majority of patients. Just don't expect to be AF-free at a rate higher than RF, where the failure rate runs at about 25%.

@gloaming I read your comments all the time and appreciate your research on tests and studies but your last comment does leave me a little frustrated. Whatever type of ablation procedure you use, the skill of the EP is the number one thing, and PFA is safer/ faster than the other types. There are no guarantees for being AF-free, but the earlier a person seeks treatment the better, and lastly, the failure rate you list may or may not be 25% but that means the success rate is 75%! I also see people who have ablations who go back to their old habits or have waited years to get treatment or simply aren't bothered that much by the symptoms. I prefer to feel optimistic and I encourage others to think positive because that alone can improve quality of life.

@gloaming. I did take another look at the studies. There are many of them ranging from 59% to over 90% for PFA. Generally, the sooner after diagnosis it is done, the better. Not a good sign for me who waited years. Apparently, the success rate jumps up for a second ablation. My clinic's studies (Mayo) reports a success rate of 75-80% at 12-month reviews. Again, I suspect that the skill of the doctor is key; more than the procedure itself.