For those who have not seen it I shall not link to it as the website is well known and linked widely in this forum, but instead I shall post it in it's entirety.
"If your AF heart rate is not excessive, it’s unlikely that you will develop heart failure. Likewise, if you have none of the 5 risks for stroke, or you take blood-thinning drugs, AF is unlikely to cause a stroke. In these cases, you don’t have to take an AF-rhythm drug(s) or have an ablation. You can live with AF. You might not be as good as you were, but you will continue to be."
OK this roughly speaking sums up where I am and what my Cardio has told me, I am in permament AF but without a severely raised heart rate (generally around 75-85), or BP generally 120/80-90 ish. I have none of the 5 risks for stroke, and I take warfarin, although the Cardio did say I could come off if I wish, and I preferred to stay on, as like Tim, stroke scares the heck out of me.
However this then does not really make sense if we believe the A Fib is a progressive disease.
So for example StopAfib.org publishes this article
and if I may quote just one line from it
"The longer you have afib, or the more persistent it becomes, the harder it is to treat."
And it's not as though this website is alone.
There is "Afib begets Afib", "The progressive nature of Atrial Fibrilation", and many many other sites which state quite categorically A Fib is a progressive disease.
So which is correct? or are they both correct?, Is Dr John really saying that A Fib is progressive but that if you have almost no symptons, then the risk of treatement is worse that the risk of waiting and treating it IF and when the A Fib gets worse?
I am confused, and of course nervous, I am not even seeing my cardio for another six months now, and yet I am truly worried what damage may be occuring without it being treated.
Any opinions out there?