reference.medscape.com/view... I know you have to join to see the whole article but it is free.Pic is of first question which presumably was answered in the main by health care professionals. Hmmm.
It also states that maintaining sinus rhythm does not reduce risk of stroke without anticoagulation, which we are constantly repeating but which seems hard for folk to accept.
Thank you for posting Bagrat. It's amazing that 25% favoured answer 3 - no wonder so many think that AF itself is responsible for strokes and not the company which AF keeps in our bodies.
That's because there are alternative points of view on AC's. A new study is just beginning to find out if PIP (as needed) anti-coagulation is as safe as daily anti-coagulation. The concept behind PIP anti-coagulation is that maintaining sinus rhythm does affect the risk of stroke. I've been on and off that strategy for the past few years. And yes, I'm concerned about getting a stroke, but I am also concerned about the effect ACs both on my body and lifestyle.
Jim
I suppose that's worth exploring if EVERY episode is symptomatic. I'm sure anticoagulation is more of an issue for boxers, rugby players and other contact sportsmen ( suppose that should be persons!!) than it is for those with a more mundane lifestyle, though I manage to fall over a blade of grass fairly regularly with so far, no ill effects connected with my DOAC.
Yes, that is the key to PIP (as needed) anti-coagulation. You have to know exactly when you go into afib. That may work for some, not for others. That's why they're using the Apple Watch to alert in the study, however there may be even better devices out there for 2/7 monitoring with alerts. Be interesting to see what they study says, but for now, most ep's don't buy into the concept but only because it hasn't been tested. Too bad it's taken this long to test, but obviously not a lot of profit in PIP anti-coagulation for the drug companies, so why study it!
Jim
Always blame the drug companies/profiteers that seek to fix the deficiencies in our bodies, most of which are caused by crappy lifestyle and wearing out parts.......and they happen to make a profit for their efforts. I think an interesting "test" (although unethical) would be to remove every single drug/device ever developed by a pharmaceutical company from the market. Every one, everywhere, no exceptions. No more pharmaceutical companies, no drug stores, no pharmacists. Try that for a year, and see the change in QOL and actuarial statistics!
There is middle ground here. Research is expensive, thus the dearth in research re supplements As Jim says drug companies have share holders who like to see profit and research is also time consuming as is obtaining backers.This is why the unnamed vaccines for that viral illness we have all heard of ,were able to be rustled up so quickly compared with the usual time consuming trek from one interested party to another cap in hand.
Nevertheless we need tested medication unless survival of the fittest sans support, is the Holy Grail
Not against the profit motive. The point simply was that there is not a lot of research in on demand anti-coagulation, because not much of a profit motive for the drug companies. Fortunately, the NIH did see a need for such a study and awarded 37 million to Northwestern and John Hopkins to study the matter over a seven year period. I just wish such a study was done earlier.
Jim
Good point Jim, I would be anxious to see how that study is set up. Regardless, I doubt that the pharm guys would ever put a "PIP" of a DOAC on the label or in the prescribing info because of potential liability (counterpoint to profit!), and it would have to be done "off label". Imagine all the shyster "class action" lawyers would be licking their chops! "My poor Uncle Joe didn't know he was having asymptomatic afib attacks in the middle of the night until he had a catastrophic stroke in the morning!" $$$$'s!
JimF (Admitted bias, BigPharm pays my pension!)
Hi Bagrat,
I took that quiz too, I got 4 out of 5, getting the last question wrong which was all about dual this and triple that. I started on warfarin after a TIA when I was 58 and that stopped the hockey I used to play straightaway. From the research I've done in the past, it does appear as though being in AF does increase the risk of a stroke, but so does having AF anyway. So once you have AF you are at increased risk due to the inflammation in the heart, then if you are actually in AF, the pooling of the blood also increases risk further.
New criteria for an ablation recently published in medscape
Medscape posts the new consensus about treating AF
Private via NHS
Just out of Interest.
