As we all know it can take some time to get AF diagnosed. In my case, from reading, googling etc. I was pretty sure I had AF but first ECG and monitor did not pick it up and took some time before I got 2nd monitor which did pick it up. I think it took about 8 months from the time I asked for help to being anticoagulated.
So my question is what are you asking for - should anticoagulants be offered in suspected cases or only after definite diagnosis?
PS. Had two suspected TIAs but never confirmed as too late when referred to stroke clinic. However these were prior to my asking for help so can't blame NHS for this!
I'm sure individual risks vary widely, but as a general rule, the risk of a clot forming due to AF (there are other possible reasons for TIAs) go up dramatically with an episode of AF lasting 24 hours or longer, according to my EP. And even then, the negative risks associated with anticoagulant use are nearly equal, so I'm sure the docs don't rush into prescribing until they are fairly certain of the benefit out- weighing that risk. I was experiencing persistent AF for months before getting serious help (not recommended), but even then, rather luckily I suppose, had no TIA nor stroke. Now, one year post successful ablation, still no meds. I know there are others who advocate anticoagulants as a safety measure, but under the circumstances, I prefer to go without unless persistent AF should return. In the meantime, I do take fish oil and other "blood thinning" supplements for all the other reasons we can get strokes. Hope this helps as you wend your way through the maze of the AF experience.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.