I am seeing the consultant about Ablation. How many had it under GA? I can't bear the thought of being awake, I don't do well with needles and pain. The sedation I've had before for endoscopes, didn't really help.
Also my friend refused hers as she heard there was a 1:800 chance of dying!! Has anyone else heard this?
All my three were under GA but it does depend on a) the method used and b) the preferences of the EP doing it. Sedation is usually better in terms of quicker recovery I am told and usually deep enough for you not to worry during the procedure. All these figures about risks are only really bandied about so that you don't sue the doctors if anything goers wrong by the way. There is risk in everything we do if we look into it enough.
Bob
I had mine under sedation. It took 5 and a half hours. I had no pain and only remember being slightly awake for a very small part of it. Even when awake I had no pain.
before I had it I was really scared but there was no need. Perhaps you could explain your fears and ask for a G.A. I know lots of people on this forum have had that. Individual E.P.s seem to have their own preference. X
My first two were under sedation , have to say not very pleasant at all, my third was under GA ,was really sick and felt really rough, my next is under sedation so I think I would say there's not much difference between them both apart from the wait is slightly longer for a GA.
Hi Busy Mum , I have had two AV node ablashions , I was awake both times and found it fasanating watching it on the monitor , please don't worry there's nothing to it , and what a relive to have no AF , and you can get on with your life .
I wish you luck , but you don't need it your in good hands .
I've just had one ablation under sedation. I didn't feel a thing and if I ever have to have another one, I'd go with sedation again.
I've had two ablations under sedation only. I was only vaguely aware of what was going on being away with the fairies most of the time and every time I started coming back to reality a nurse beside me would nod his head and the sedation would be increased. My last one like this went on for 6hrs and I really didn't feel a thing, nor was I aware of what was happening. Whenever I'm asked if I want sedation I always answer, 'Yes lots please'.
My EP insisted on it being under sedation as he needs feedback from you if anything hurts. But nothing did and it was fine. A little worrying when my chest jumped up for the actual tissue kills but all in all I've had far worse days.
And 1:800 isn't a bad rate at all - for the heart bypass I also had it's almost ten times worse. Without an ablation I'd put the likely death rate from a stroke as far worse.
The risk to anyone during a GA is greater than the risks of an ablation. Away with the fairies sounds a good idea to me!
I had mine under GA and all went well and no recovery issues. Good luck
My ablation was performed under GA. I'm not sure I would react well to being awake, because I've also had issues with things not going well when semi-awake during endoscopy. For me...not good.
Before my procedure I did a ton of research on the risks association with ablation. I agree with others that many of these stats are out there to ensure folks know there are risks and therefore might make one less likely to sue.
MY EP explained the risks to me in detail, and then gave me actual statistics from his practice and the hospital in which the ablation was performed. It eased my mind.
Everything went smoothly for me, and I'm feeling so much better now. Good luck!
My ablation was whilst sedated. I only remember very small parts and the 3 hours flew by.
I was told that most consultants nowadays prefer it to be done under sedation because the heart and body are closer to normal, the recovery is better and it is less risky. For many there will be little or no communication. Apparently 5 to 10 years ago it was nearly always GA.
The numbers that I was quoted was less than 1 in 1000 which is quite a bit better than the 1 in 800 that you quote. [Remember that 1 in 9999 would still be less than 1 in 1000]. However when I researched it I found a study from about 10 years ago which quoted that number and obviously ablations were much more in their infancy then and the equipment, skills and procedures much more sophisticated now. I also found that for many common situations the numbers are low (not necessarily for death). One set of statistics that I looked at were for babies and childbirth (because that happened to come up on the search) and if those were actual reality we would all have / know many babies / children who had died or had serious conditions. I certainly don't know that! I came to the conclusion that medics / the health industry use extremely conservative statistics and numbers.
You need to come to your own conclusions.
Ablation or not .
Catheter ablation, or not?
Ablation or not ?
