Hello everyone, I was under the impression that AF did not lower life expectancy providing we stay anti-coagulated but it seems I've been living under a misapprehension. I've just filled out the NHS online "heart age" calculator to determine my risk of heart attack or stroke. I am 76 but my heart age came out as 92. Out of curiosity, I then repeated the calculation removing AF from my answers and got 77 - a difference of 15 years and all down to AF.
I was checking all this because my GP recently turned (unusually) to face me and declared (somewhat aggressively I thought): "You have a 40% chance of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years." I was a bit shocked. He told me my cholesterol was "very high" (total 5.3, LDL 3.3, HDL 1.5) though it had been checked every six months, along with my liver functioning, and no-one had ever mentioned it before. Not surprisingly, he wanted to put me on statins. I said I would think about it, which I am, and in the meantime I've been trying plant sterols, which seem to be making a difference.
What strikes me is that the NHS calculator loads my heart with another 15 years of theoretical aging simply because I have AF. There is no box to tick if someone is taking anti-coagulants, so am I to assume the medication does nothing for the health of my heart, and that the length of my life will be curtailed simply because I have AF?
Written by
Sambaqui
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Frankly I wouldn't take any notice of these calculators. I was given a heart age well over 100 a long time ago! I must be about 120 now, though actually 78. My bloodwork is all ok.
Neither is it high in my Doctor's opinion - it was only when mine was nearly 7 that she suggested that I might like to take a statin, I take a small dose (5mg) which keeps my reading at about 4, because she does not want it to go too low as that is equally bad. I just feel that it is another tool to help prevent a stroke.
I’ve never had statins suggested, and was told that my last reading was good at 5.3. I’m just assuming it was due to a high HDL reading, so that the GP is happy with the balance. Who knows, but certainly I have never had any conversation about taking them. Maybe it kicks in when I turn 70?
Absolutely agree on LDL , in that I have seen several times that if you are over 70 you do not want LDL < 3 , in particular when you are on blood thinners as it makes you liable to a bleed stroke as against a blood clot one. Additionally the HDL is nearly optimal. And if the triglycerides can be discovered and are a good bit lower than the HDL then that is protective of the LDL causing arterial blockage.
New Zealand health guidelines for acceptable blood cholesterol levels are: LDL-cholesterol – less than 2.0 mmol/L. HDL-cholesterol – greater than 1.0 mmol/L. Triglycerides – less than 1.7 mmol/L. Total 4 no matter what your age I wish my Mum had taken statins instead of dying from a huge stroke
Those guidelines line up almost exactly with those in the U.S. I can't imagine anyone saying that an LDL <3 is dangerous. Mine is 1.8 (age 75, on anticoagulant) and my cardio guy is tickled pink. Also on statins for 20+ years.
Well said BobD and the c*** about the cholesterol. Mine is 5 and I am told to 'watch it' but I know that is not particularly high and I had a bacon cob in the morning I had my bloods done!
I completely agree that 5.3 is not even close to high, let alone "very high" as your doctor told you. He's just pushing a statin agenda.
I'm not recommending you throw caution to the wind but my dad had AF from his 40's onwards (just like me! Thanks Dad!!) and died at 89. He took buckets of medication, one thing to solve the problems of another medication, that sort of thing. Never did as he was told for his heart (zero exercise) and his AF was totally out of control because of it. His mother and sister died in their 90's, so perhaps his AF knocked 5 years or so off. But by that stage he'd had more than enough anyway. Don't worry about it. Ignore such calculators. They are not in it to help us.
I agree with Bob your cholesterol is not high. When I read your post I hurried to the NHS website to try the test myself and yes my heart age was 80 when I entered AF and 70 when I didn't.
I think it's wrong of them to count AF as reducing life years. Being someone who thinks she knows her own body better than anyone else, I think I'll live to around 88 the same as my dad did.
Thanks for making us aware of this heart age calculator.
It's so good and reassuring to hear the spirited response from you and everyone, Jean. I need to re-calibrate my mind and not get so obsessed with trying to hit all the "right" numbers for cholesterol, blood pressure etc. It's not doing me any good. It does bother me, though, that the NHS puts out such sloppy and generalised information. Bothers me even more that my GP should use it persuade me onto medication.
You just have to ignore it. The algorithm for calculating heart attack risk has recently been updated . The old algorithm massively overestimated the real life actual occurrence of heart attacks and you can bet your bottom dollar the new one will not be an improvement. The purpose is to get more people on medication for life.
No you are not. They do it through KOLs Key Opinion Leaders. These are pet Professors of Medicine that they have in all the teaching medical schools internationally who get put on committees that determine guidelines. Here in France there is a register the public can consult showing the sums of money they receive from Pharma . Some of the top snouts in the trough get hundreds of thousands of euros. Of course they maintain that this dosh has no effect whatsoever on the decisions they make.
Grossly underfunded to the point of being unsafe at increasingly frequency of times.... And only provides what it does due to a diminishing workforce who can no longer hold it up. It may not have fully failed yet but it is failing.....
But our NHS is truly struggling. Our friend's wife, 94, fell on Sunday and for the second time waited several hours on the floor for an ambulance and the hospital experience for her husband (in permanent AF at 89) has been awful - no wheelchair on one visit, unclean disabled toilet to cope with...
I think our NHS is much more broken that many of us (including me) realised.
Absolutely agree ,people are living longer therefore there's more to treat ,the NHS is a victim of its own success,when all us baby boomers have shuffled off ,things will get back to normal.
I hope those following us are brave enough to create a new normal that makes room for more political and social initiatives than the current 2 party entrenchment allows for. The kids need to get angry otherwise all the advances our parents fought for will be lost in all areas not just health.
QOF stands for Quality Outcome Framework and was introduced by the Blair administration many years ago. What it means is that doctors have certain things that they have to discuss with patients, one being statins, in order for their salaries to be assessed. In other words financial incentives . In fact it is merely required that they have the conversation with patients about statins. When I politely refused them and apologised to my GP if it affected her salary she confessed that it made no difference to her since she had had the conversataion with me. A tick box system in other words. Many GPs seem to take it as a personal insult if you decline though hence the pressure often seen.
Welllll you can waste a lot of your life worrying about your death so ignore these so called indicators, take good care of yourself and enjoy the rest of your life, none of us get forever anyway.....my Father was killed in a RTA as he walked across a road for example so indicators meant nothing for him.
Could you explain what studies you are basing this assertion on please tunybgur?
I only ask because my understanding is that Statins offer no benefit to the vast majority of users and may even increase the incidence of heart attack and stroke, whilst causing a range of serious side-effects in many.
I've posted the lectures of Dr Paul Mason and others on this forum a few times now, after people have made the same comment about 'the evidence'. Dr Mason is one of the rare few who have actually read the studies and challenged the way their findings have been manipulated.
There are enough studies published to fill a book on the benefits of statins. If you don't want to take them, that's your business. I would be curious to see an analysis of risk/benefit comparing statins to anticoagulants. (spoiler alert-I take both, enthusiastically).
As to side effects, there have been studies that show the incidence of side effects was statistically identical between patients receiving statins and the placebo control group-which strengthens the old maxim that if you give patients a long enough list of potential side effects, many will check most of the boxes.
And there are books written by dissenting cardiologists like Michel de Lorgeril here in France and other doctors which have gone over these studies with a fine tooth comb and pulled them apart ruthlessly showing that any benefits are marginal to non existent for primary prevention and that any benefit accrued is from their anti inflammatory effect and not through cholesterol lowering. As C Dreamer rightly points out in this thread there are far less problematical ways of effectively lowering inflammation than a drug which disrupts one of the key metabolic pathways in the liver.
I know I should have left this can of worms closed, but the following are extracts from a few of many well respected and non partisan authors based on significant research, but I also accept this subject has a significant number of skeptics, it will ever be so.....good luck.
The media may sometimes interpret and communicate treatment guidelines, new research, and medicines in a way that can sensationalise and lead to them being misconstrued by the general public. In the case of statins, healthcare professionals can be confident that current recommendations on their use are based on robust and extensive evidence. No one doubts the benefit of statins when prescribed for those who are known to have CVD, so individuals in this category should be reassured of their benefits and encouraged to take their medication if at all possible.
For those at risk of developing CVD, but not yet known to have the condition, taking action to prescribe statins, in line with NICE guidelines, will contribute to achieving the ambition to reduce their risk and individuals at increased risk should be offered advice about the benefits of lifestyle change and potential use of statins. Getting more individuals with a >10-20% ten-year risk of developing CVD on to statin therapy will save thousands of lives and help reduce the number of people suffering the burden of living with CVD.
Yes, it is a can of worms, which I don't enjoy either, but there are good reasons for that. Unfortunately the link you provided makes the very assertions pulled apart by Dr Mason and several others, who have looked at numerous studies which were claimed to show conclusive positive results about Statins when in reality they showed negative results which were buried in the fine detail or simply ignored.
I would urge anyone in doubt to look at the various videos under the heading 'Low Carb Down Under' on YouTube. This is not about 'Doctor Google', a phrase used to describe online sources of doom-laden worst-case medical info; these are courageous and tenacious professionals exposing fraudulent and unethical misinformation about Statins.
That's what I meant about a can of worms, there are lots of convincing and charismatic people out there making various claims and presenting 'their' proofs, I only look at the ones without axes to grind....but who to believe?
Have you read any of the stuff published by Dr. Mercola? He seems to speak a lot of sense backed up by data, but has been roundly condemned by his peers. Some of his stuff is obviously sound, but a lot of it is dangerous....that's what I mean, tread carefully, we must also respect the rules of this site governing medical advice.
The raw patient level data from umpteen statin trials is held by the CTTC - the Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration - a bunch of researchers based in Oxford. They refuse to release this data so that independent researchers and statisticians can analyse it. They give the excuse of commercial secret. Until this data is released and gone over the truth about statins will remain murky. The data that is available does not make the case for them according to the statin sceptics - who do not have skin in the game financially. There is no money to be made in recommending a healthy diet and exercise. The BHF takes money from Pharma.
My Mother, who has had afib since her early 40s, turned 82 today and she is doing very well! To be fair, she eats a very strict vegan diet, which has made a tremendous difference in her weight, heart rhythm, and mood. Before becoming vegan she was a die-hard low carb eater, however, that almost killed her when it resulted in a large mass in her pancreas that shut down all function turning her into a type 1 diabetic. Her attitude and outlook are inspiring. So, from where I am sitting and with the very little anecdotal evidence available to me…I say RUBBISH to the calculators! 🙂
Describing the NHS as diabolical is going to upset a lot of people, including me. However, if this article has copied correctly, here's some information on why statins are frequently offered. (Though not to me.) thetimes.co.uk/article/what...
Basically it said that Dr prescribe statins because it is very much cheaper to give them to everyone than to treat the strokes they might get without them. Dr Porter said he wasn't going to take them himself as he could assess his own risk but he explained why they were prescribed so widely.
I'm on statins myself and don't have side effects my cardiologist said they lower cholesterol especially LDL which must be as near 1.4 as possible.He himself takes 80mg a day so that's good enough recommendation for me
I believe that the doctor's goal of reducing LDL to 1.4 (= 54 in U.S. units) is unattainable for all practical purposes. In the U.S. the goal is to shoot for LDL of 1.8 (=70 in U.S. units) for those with other cardio risk factors. That is a much more realistic, and frequently attainable goal, if needed. Statins are beneficial for the vast majority of folks using them to help attain that goal.
Also the doctor's stated dose of 80mg is meaningless unless the particular statin is identified. Different statins have different effective doses.
KNOWN is a strong word to use without providing a reference. I have done that for you.
Fact is there are different opinions, in fact some say statins may help with the loss of cognitive function. But a fact without different opinion is if you develop high cholesterol the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks of developing Alzheimers.
Who says high cholesterol is such a bad thing? I have read /watched several things recently that are suggesting it is not the cholesterol in itself that it the problem but the combination of it with lack of vitamin K2 and excess calcium in the blood stream I have posted some video links from Dr Pradeep Jamnadas previously. I am not qualified so say these are right or wrong but he certainly raises some interesting questions.York Cardiology ( Gupta) also mentioned K2 recently.
Good answers above - cholesterol does not cause heart attacks, arteriosclerosis does but eating too much or a poor diet does raise your risks of ill health. Arteriosclerosis starts with inflammation - statins are supposed to be anti-inflammatory but there are lots of naturally based foods and extracts which work as well. Cholesterol is essential for your body but in the right proportions and rises anyway as you age. Unless you have familial hyper cholesterol forget about the statins. Eat sensibly, exercise moderately, enjoy your life and stress less and sleep well. Shame your doctor seems unable to do that.
I don’t want to live into extreme old age thank you very much and I doubt the next generation would want us all to!
Statistic mislead and tell only one small part of our story. My 92 year old neighbour can outwalk, outtalk, out calculate me on mental arithmetic and the only concern I have about her is when she climbs on her step ladder to clean her windows. She has had AF fore 30 years and is not in the least concerned about it.
Statins linked to lower stroke risk for AF not withstanding anticoagulants according to this study.
GPs are considered irresponsible if they don’t discuss smoking, statins, exercise etc and epidemiologically you can see why. Your chloresterol isn’t that high and your GP needs training in bedside manners! And I daren’t comment on the comment re NHS because it is ignorant and irresponsible. Doctors in all systems get flooded with promotional material and those in a private or insurance system often have huge financial investment conscious or otherwise to skew judgment, very different from a minor uplift because the NHS wants more medics to prioritise prevention
This is a cohort study - therefore lesser degree of evidence than an RCT. If you look at the actual numbers reported the difference between statin users and non users is miniscule. The % benefits are presented in terms of relative benefit as is always the case. The study was discussed here a couple of weeks ago.
I might join this conversation from an iconoclastic perspective.The challenge of AF is not simply the direct impact on your stroke or heart attack risk, rather the concomitant impact on your life more generally. I deliberately avoided the gratuitous QOL acronym.
From my perspective if you are having AF challenges then your life is diminished.
Whatever!!
How this is correlated statistically is beyond my wit.
I believe it would make more sense if we could draw a curve of our life doability.
My experience is with AF I was functioning at about 50% and getting worse, after an ablation the curve continued to rise, like turning a big ship around. Now after 2 years I am functioning at 75% and rising.
Maybe the statistical approach needs more humanity in the metrics used!!
I suspect that they looked at the average age when people who also had AFib passed away and extrapolated from there. There are many cases of undiagnosed AFib until having a stroke, strokes due to uncoagulated AFib, AFib with heart failure, heart valve issues etc., where the cause of death was not due to the AFib.
My anecdotal experience tells me the broader medical appreciation of AF is low.Unless you are lucky enough to have your first AF episode near an ECG you will be diagnosed with a common syncope. And this can go on for years. Worse if your heart is in good physical shape..
I am 69 and have lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, probably a result of a lifetime of overtraining. I first became aware of my condition when my heart rate shot up to 240 while training on a rowing machine. Purchasing a Kardia after this incident helped me identify the condition. Printing out the Kardia ECG tracings helped convince my GP to refer me and get an appointment with a cardiologist within a month. Flecainide and Apixiban have let me resume a normal life and be confident enough to continue moderate exercise. I do take a statin. None of my meds produce noticeable side effects. Here in Canada. Our health care system, which is a provincial jurisdiction, is showing weakness due to decades of government complacency and underfunding. More and more we are having to seek information and support from research online and forums such as this.
You need to read up on the horror stories existing prior to the NHS. And until recent successive governments started flirting with privatisation at same time underfunding, the NHS was pride of the world.
My Mother was 98 when she died, having had AF for years. She died with it not of it. Old age got her in the end . She walked everywhere as do I. She had 2 sayings that she lived by. " Shut up and get on with it" And " What's the point of worrying about something you can do Bugger all about. Worth thinking about.
My mum is the same, she lives for the day, doesn't think about the past or future and most of all DOESN'T WORRY, like your mum, worrying changes nothing and she says "worry will kill you!" By the way my mum has permanent afib and is 95!! Still cooking, washing etc and she has a urostomy having survived bladder cancer at the age of 75
Well I don’t find anything offensive about what you’re saying and share some of your thoughts- NHS is most definitely not in a good place but this is not in my opinion down to bad doctors, bad nurses- growing demand and years of mismanagement both by government and some unscrupulous management put into positions to run it as a Business - It needs to change for sure
health services in general are not in a good place. Anywhere. It's really horrifying especially when you have some really serious issues and doctors push unnecessary (sometimes) tests and meds because they don't know what to do. Instead of saying "I don't know" send me to a specialist or someone who can help me. This is not a salary issue to me. It's a life and death issue to me. And yes, here in the US there is a website,I can't remember offhand, that shows which doctors are being "gifted" for pushing the meds and my primary and then cardiologist were on the list of statins!! I don't have an answer but it is a travesty to those of us in health crises every day.
I hope that I didn't ruin Dr Ohtsuka's fine work. I did 7 sets of 5 pull ups in the park three days ago and I had a bout of tachycardia today that resolved after an hour.
Amazingly UK is still ranked between 10th - 15th - dependant on the index and there are many. Doesn’t say a lot for NZ or US who don’t seem to feature. Countries who rated with best healthcare:-
South KoreaTaiwanDenmarkAustriaJapanAustraliaFranceSpainBelgiumUnited Kingdom
Still a very sad day that we have dropped so low..... once considered the best in the world to these days our government apparantly unperturbed by 500unnecessary deaths per week because people aren't treated quickly enough.
You have to take what the NHS still does well as healthcare ratings are judged on preventative measures, how it looks after the poorest in society and critical care. Judgements takes into consideration how many nurses per doctor, universal access etc. NOT how quickly you can get to see an EP for a none critical but very pesky condtion - annoying as that most certainly is.
Although US may have advanced treatments, because many of them are inaccessible - US often comes bottom or near bottom of the tables, along with SubSaharren Africa which is even sadder.
The real debate should be - why is healthcare such a political football in so many countries and why is there such resistance by both politics and public to paying a fair contribution to fund healthcare - especially when extravagant amounts seem to be willingly spent on frivolity, arms to intentionally kill, food and beverages which cause many of our ills in the first place?
What's that song? " It's all about the money, the money....."Whatever country's politicians spout the last thing they believe in is equal opps. It still a jungle out there...
Oh the joys of statistics! I try to avoid the NHS sites now as whoever thought these things up didn't take in all the various factors, as Geoffa1 says, into consideration. Another example is the dreaded BMI, which gives the same reading whatever height or body shape you are.
And as Bob says, 5.3 isn't high. You can refuse or accept statins, but this seems borderline. My son on law has had to have statins.His cholesterol was very high - much, much higher than yours - and the pills have reduced this to a decent level, but then it's in his family as his mum died of problems caused by it.
Thank you Anne for taking time to explain your comments. The NHS here is such an emotional topic, something our mums and dads fought for, we love it like our favourite child. And tragically we're rapidly moving towards a private system, with friends of government ministers sucking up the profits and waiting lists growing ever longer. You're not wrong in seeing this, but we're holding on in there, supporting our over stretched medics and some areas of UK have less patchy services than others!
Ah yes that questionaire!! That's the one they did on me as part of my health check. Afib does indeed raise your risk of heart attack according to it. Mine was 18 but without Afib entered 8. Anything over 9 means your at risk of a heart attack. It's a very basic tick box. GP told me that if I didn't take statins I'd have a heart attack in 20yrs. She was positively aggressive and was unable to provide me with any concrete evidence to substantiate her claim. This meant at 86 I'd have a heart attack. At the time I pointed out to her that a) my cholesterol level was totally fine and in range.... She agreed and secondly far more likely was that the big C would return & finish me off than a unsubstantiated spurious questionaire of no substance! She got more angry and told me I'd die.... Which seems to be her stock answer when you dont do what she wants.Do I believe? it No...... &, frankly if I make it into my 80s I'll be super happy.
Thing is the tick box just says Afib. It doesn't grade it, it doesn't say if it well managed or not. Honestly GPs should start using their grey matter more!!
As for the NHS failing. It is falling apart without a doubt because of the inadequate funding and resulting high level of job vacancies. Now 7.2million Waiting operations!! The stress for staff is unsustainable with huge number leaving going to better paid, less stressful jobs in the private sector or abroad.. The NHS is indeed tipping over the edge..... Two days ago I got a text telling me to alter a vital medication I've been stable on for years drastically. No consultation, not even a phone call and zero follow up. I complained &, politely pointed out the patients charter. I got a phone call & that was better. Not good enough really but better than a text. Do any of the GPs know my case? No!
Anyone who thinks the NHS isn't failing is living under a myth.... It's is.... Even my surgeon told me the NHS is no longer safe.... Surgery still is at the moment he said. He's a heart surgeon.. .
So yes we need protests..... Visible on the street ones.... To save our NHS. We need to fight. The campaign for a new prime minister has started.... If you want the NHS to survive it's time to speak up.. It won't be easy to turn it away from it's slow car crash..... But everyone benifits from it. Of course the government have just passed new powers to stop demonstrations.... Our rights to peaceful. protest have been infringed drastically So speak up folk if you want the NHS to return to normal you need shout out loud.
when I went to my doctors recently I said I was 67 and had lone AF and was on apaxiban but not statins and was my cholesterol ever tested. He said I was classed as low risk and not necessary!! So I googled it and it said an anti coagulant was a far stronger drug than a statin. So I just thought maybe that was where the dr was coming from. Nearly all my friends are on statins though
I think the point is drs are the same everywhere. They all, in the main, care. Our govt incentivises them piecemeal, so they get a credit in some instances if they provide some info to patients. Contraception is another good example of this here. We can also choose alternative brands, and I am also confident that my Dr is not ticking a box when she prescribes. The waiting list issue is a crippling one, and not helped by COVID, though that excuse is wearing thin now. Most of these issues, as you alude in your reply are not medical but how the health provision is managed, which is a govt thing.Gary
That cholesterol is not especially high! Mine is higher as it happens. I'm sorry you had this fright. If you look for posts using the search term STATINS you'll see this is something GPs do. They're obliged to have 'the statins conversation'. A sensible GP notices that the algorithm they use for calculating cardiovascular risk is heavily weighted against AF. Yet your AF is managed...I'm sure others here will have responded similarly.b
Well said Singwell..... 👏👏👏The truth is a lot of GPs are ill informed and follow their screens religiously.....and in fairness they dare not follow what it says for fear of reprisal. I do however draw the line at bullying patients. My overall cholesterol is four.
It has been proven statins increase life expectancy, by days - if you value that then fine..... That is of no interest to me given the other side effects that can cause damage.. And no one can tell me the consequences when mixed with other drug combinations..
I can think of far better ways of the NHS spending our money than putting everyone on statins over a certain age!! However big pharmacy is laughing all the way to the bank.... & the huge profits statins generate more than compensates for the ongoing legal claims for damages their statins have caused a lot of people. Shame on them.
Also, NHS specifically stated if you have hypothyroidism that this must be stabilise first or the effects of Statins can be harmful. Plus high cholesterol is expected if theres an issue with T3 - something the NHS and teating labs appear to be discounting. Diltiazem is also contra indicated. So if a GP doesn't join in the dots...I'm about to tell my.GP to hold on the statins conversation until we get a result of my T3. She has requested this test now 3 times and each time.the lab has not complied. Even though my TSH is over the range and T4 just within. Makes me livid. But you know the issues with how hypothyroidism is treated here already.
Interested to know where the NHS states that hypothyroidism must first be stabilised or the effects of statins can be harmful. I have subclinical hypothyroidism so not medicated at the moment but feeling some of the symptoms. I take a statin for heart issues. It might help in my campaign to get medicated if the NHS says you shouldn't have statins if you have hypothyroidism.
Ah yes but they will argue that you don't have hypothyroidism as you are not diagnosed as such. This is why so many people go off piste and self treat because they are left suffering because of the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism....due to the TSH upper limit now being arbitory set so high. I couldn't function with a TSH of 4.8 but back then that was the level to be fully diagnosed as having Hypothyroidism.... These days it over 10!So yes get a private test.... If that shows low levels of thyroid hormones as well as a raised TSH you stand a chance. Also if your blood tests show a consistant pattern of risng TSH, falling Ft4 & 3 they technically can treat. Good luck.
Don't give up!! Think of it as a strategy game, make them work hard. I went off piste for 3 years... I actually liked it tbh as I had total control.... But it's not cheap. Meanwhile I carried on pushing my case forward letting them know what I was taking, how much and why.... Incase I was ever really poorly tbh. And eventually I won & my medication was then provided by the NHS. Read up.... Peatfields book called Living with your Thyroid will give you a good grounding. Knowledge is power. Only doctors who don't know me try telling me how to medicate my thyroid.... they don't win as they don't know much at all & are floored because they realise I know a heap more. Do I like having to do this? No!! But it's my health & it's no thanks to them that I'm well now.
The only way you will get a free T3 test in the UK if you don't have Graves disease is to pay for it. I suggest you book a weekend trip to France and walk into any Laboratoire d'Analyses Medicales and ask for T (pronounced tay) quatre libre. It should cost 25 euros or less and you should get your result in an email in 24 hours. Most labs are open Sat mornings.
Don't worry I'm on the case. I'm calling the surgery tomorrow. If not done YET AGAIN I'll book into a.testing centre when I'm in London next week. I'm also going to write to the health Trust, the Welsh Synedd and the Minister for Health. It pees me off hugely that a laboratory is making decisions about my health!
They will do TSH ft4 & Ft3 if the GP puts suspected HypERthyroidism.Insufficiently or not treated hypothyroidism is well linked to heart problems, high cholesterol, high blood pressure (or low in some cases) amongst a muitude of other symptoms, eg poor digestion, hearing difficulties, blurred vision, dry skin, excessive bleeding during menstruation, depression etc.... The list is very long. Honestly I just don't understand why they hesitate to treat..... Far too many people suffering unnecessarily... Many for years.
Yes, I see that from the forum. Very sad. I don't suffer too much but am acutely aware od these links with comorbidities. And offering statins is just like bandaid. Where we can fix the source of the problem, that is what we should do.
Indeed I do 🙄.... Lol. In all honesty you are best to get a private test. You can do them via post. Only do on a Monday or Tuesday and return the- that so the labs don't end up with it sitting over the weekend...Thyroid UK have a list of them. Often offers on and you can get a discount on some. Your GP sounds interested... Might well be interested in your test results. Make sure you do the test first thing before breakfast.
Days on average. Given the very small number of days some people actually lose days. I did see the figures once but can't remember them except one was -19.
Given that high cholesterol goes along with hypo it would be much better to treat the hypo than all the myriad symptoms that hypo can produce. But that would actually probably mean a loss of income for Pharma as Levo is cheap as chips and if a combo T4/T3 treatment was used the need for the other meds would melt away. The latest study that I read which proclaimed to great fanfare in the press that any statin side effects were likely due to nocebo effect was noticeably lacking in women participants . How many women have been prescribed statins and SSRIs and God knows what else only to then develop diabetes and even worse memory loss when all they needed was thyroid treatment? When I was first diagnosed with hypo 23 years ago I did a lot of research and spent time on thyroid forums . Then treatment was a disgrace and NOTHING seems to have changed!
The problem is that doctors are not taught to join the dots up but to treat symptoms. Years ago before the advent of thyroid blood tests people were treated by signs and symptoms. I suspect they had far, far better treatment back them. Doctors these days wouldn't have a clue over a physical presentation... Well that's if you're lucky enough to get a face to face appointment! I took over the management of my hypothyroidism years ago as the level ignorance from medical professionals is staggering. So many other health conditions can be avoided if hypothyroidism is treated optimally. Fair few years ago I pointed out the financial benifit from doing so to them.... That DID make sense to them & after optimal treatment I went from needing 7 medications to just one. Finally the penny dropped with that bunch of GPs. Sadly they've all left/retired & another cohort have come in.... & yep not a clue. Given its a common condition, it's appalling!
My mother had a friend who was diagnosed hypo - probably in the late 50s. She was very ill by the time she was diagnosed but was put on treatment and did fine. When the TSH test came in she was taking 200mcg and felt good . The doc said she was overmedicated according to her blood tests and reduced her to 125 mcg. She used to complain to my mother she never felt well again.. But her bloods passed the test of "euthyroid" so tough .
That's appalling! Thyroid medication should never be altered by more than 25mcg at a time. Secondly it's not about the test saying you are in range... The TSH shou be 1 or under. The ignorance of doctors creates poorly people.This happened to me last week. Hospital tested me without saying so I'd taken my meds & was on a B complex containing biotin so would invalidate the test. They ignored me when I realised it included thyroid . Results came in sky high. So GP text me (I mean just a flipping text) said low by a whole third of my dose, no review no follow up. I was furious and rang up to complain. Doctor called within 2 hrs and backed down completely when I explained. No apology. This isn't treatment at all... It's not even crowd management....its dangerous frankly. Not safe at all.
If someone is claiming benefits (plus the over 60s) then they get free prescriptions. Everyone is then lumped into one NHS ‘basket’ and onto the extremely long waiting lists for treatment - even the rich! We’re being driven to a pay for private treatment to shorten the wait times - that’s if you can afford it.
unfortunately COVID has had a huge impact on heart health issues and the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up. Hence the 9-12 month wait for an ablation where I live.
I was prescribed statins when first diagnosed with heart issues. My understanding is that they are unnecessary for most people but are dirt cheap to produce and do lower bad cholesterol therefore you might as well prescribe them for everybody. The problem is that some people react badly to them or even certain types of them.
My GP has been trying unsuccessfully for years to put me on a statin. When I pointed out to him that my good cholesterol numbers and overall ratio were very good he agreed and he has stopped mentioning it.
The Great Cholesterol Myth by Bowden and Sinatra (US cardiologist), and The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick (British GP) age both great reads.
The truth is not always shared between Doctors and Patients…
Read this with an open mind and research..
then find a happy medium between what you discover and what you doctor suggests.
For example… to be healthy… your liver needs to make cholesterol… on average it’s 3000 mg a day.. what people get wrong is their diet…
Using trans fat from processed food or “bad” poly oils … creates inflammation… omega 6’s
This then creates a chain reaction with blood coagulation.
So statins get handed out like smarties… trouble is muscle and brain NEED cholesterol.. it’s their fuel.. which is why statin users get muscle pains and memory fog…
Changing your diet to omega 3 particularly krill oil and olive oils reduces inflammation and makes those big fluffy Hdl and ldl molecules..
Eating more fresh leafy greens and fruits help keep blood viscosity low… less sticky.
Most ailments will respond better with plant based solutions.
Consider using proteolytic enzymes too pineapple is bromelain.. Nattokinase (fermented soy) or serapeptase ( silk worm). these reduce fibrin and scar tissue ..helps the body remove bad cholesterol… helps blood flow as it should… research K2 too..
Consider pomegranate extract… this helps restore the energy in your cells through mitophagy… through ellagic acid and urolithin A.
All above Safe with “thinners” providing you do not exceed recommended daily doses…
Blood thinners often only address the XA factor with the liver… which controls clotting.. they do not reduce fibrin.. fibrinolytics like natto reduce fibrin throughout the body …the fine webbing mesh the body makes when it thinks there is a tear in a vessel.. it’s that fishing nets that slows down and impedes blood flow enough to form a clot… combined with dense cholesterol . If you are sedentary or have poor mobility your blood flow is more likely to be sluggish.
Most Japanese use fibrinolytics in their diet.. probably why they have a much lower incidence of clotting… go figure.
After a month or two get you bloods rechecked .. you should see better results.
Doctors sometimes do not see the whole picture… apologies for the long winded version.
And there is the research that is now showing that overal withing range cholesterol but with an imbalance of LDH is not bad as they thought. It's a bit like the butter versus margerine that raged for years. In the end though butter was fine despite all the bad press it received for years. Diet hslps but isn't the answer. Many people are left with sub hypothyroidism because their TSH doesn't get over the arbitory TSH of 10 (used to be 4.5). One of the effects of a failing thyroid is a rising level of cholesterol, and blood pressure. Again often overlooked. Not treating or under treating hypothyroidism also leads to higher cholesterol levels. Again often overlooked.Sorry will get off my soap box now!! 🤣😅
Not anymore. Was on the news recently that scientists have found that not to be relevant if you are still in range. So you don't have to equal proportions of LDH & HDL. They are finding that HDL has some important uses after all. A wise GP told me that no amount of changing my diet would alter my ratio. They are both in range and conbined together are in range.
I'm so sorry I don't have the relevant research but will have a look & see if I can find it.
Very helpful, thank you. I just started a plant sterol complex suggested by CDreamer but am interested in other options. Fermented soy, miso etc. Good - love these!
I’m not offended by what you are saying about it either. You have hit the nail on the head, our NHS system is overwhelmed and suffering is caused because of it.
I am not a Doctor, but I do believe it is your Cholesterol that is what will give you a heart attack, or stroke. Not Afib. At least that is what I am told by my German Doctors.
Not quite the full story…Afib can allow a pocket in the corner of the atrium to hold blood long enough to create a clot…then a sudden burst of exercise or excitement will “dislodge” this and off it goes into the heart or brain…which is why taking a blood thinner reduces this likelihood…far better to use a low dose fibrolytic enzyme like nattokinase because it does not cause internal bleeding like aspirin etc.Bad cholesterol forms through inflammation due to eating processed foods with trans fats and sugars…which can cause narrowing in the main vessels anywhere in the circulatory system.
The key is taking care of your health and not over eating. Weight plays a major factor in Heart health. My Cardiologist told me that keeping my weight in check is the best way to stay fit and probably more importantly exercise moderately. My AF episodes have gone from 10 hours to 3 since I started following my doctor's advice and when I do get an episode they are mild compared to before when they were horrible. Can you reverse Afib? Well, yes, maybe. I don't know, but mine is living proof it makes a difference. Cheers..
Nope, I'm only 55 kilos and my cholesterol is on the high side due to hypothyroidism. My sister has low cholesterol and is overweight. Doesn't necessarily follow.
I agree, it doesn’t work like that. I’m also a lifelong skinny minnie, my cholesterol is actually very low that I daren’t post it here because I’m sure that some doom-merchant who has OD’d on internet bro science will come along to “prove” low cholesterol is baaaad and that I should be necking down grass-fed bull testicles or whatever. People with lifelong low cholesterol almost always have specific genetic mutations and we don’t choose our parents. My height and build are hereditary, so I can’t claim that my not-fatness is down to anything I’ve “done”. That’s just the set of genes I’ve been dealt. I eat a plant based diet and that’s my choice but it doesn’t make me any more virtuous than the next person, nor would I say there’s only one right way to eat. If someone finds another way, that’s OK. What someone else chooses to eat is none of our business anyway. The fact is, we can’t micromanage all our bodily processes and biochemical reactions that are going on every second of every day of our lives. So much is beyond our control. We all have genetic susceptibilities and if we’re lucky those genes may never be switched on. Or they might be through no fault of our own. We’re not machines!
When I got mine under control - not with increasing Beta Blocker but introducing CCB a calcium Channel blocker!
But diagnosed with rapid, persistent AF H/R so my heart continues to be irregular, not symptoms of excessive sweating and fatigue and exertion stop has lessened. The excessive sweating has almost disappeared except with hot environment.
You can imagine a heart beating over 200bpmin x 60 an hour x 24 hrs x 7 = poor heart getting to wear out. Controlled under 100.
I would hate to think that ablations are a negative when so many Afers have this done!
Do air the internet causation of ablations please. It would put out a caution to all of us.
When heart stops means 🤔 we stop. The wear and tear of dodgy heart beats and the scarring from ablation is not going to extend life expectancy. So it’s reasonable to presume it will shorten it 😂🙄
If it’s an NHS calculator then did it ask questions about diet, exercise, mental health, social health, comorbities and overall lifestyle? I would suggest all those need to be taken into account when (trying) to predict longevity.
hi, please don’t tell me not to use such an expression- who do you think you are? Us users of this wonderful tool are on here because of our illness and use it as a positive experience. You say it wasn’t a good comparison, I wasn’t making a comparison, you are the one making a comparison, I was just making light of the situation and ridiculing the GP.
there is a Health insurance all inclusive in the US where everything is under one roof. It’s called Kaiser Permanente. I have dealt with these people way back with both is my parents. I used to be with them and they are horrific. They pay their doctors for NOT prescribing tests and referrals. When I first had AFib I could not even get them to refer me to a cardiologist. And if you are elderly it’s even worse. They don’t want to spend the money on old people. Thankfully it is a private company and I chose to go with a different insurance when I turned 65. I equate it to socialized medicine and it stinks. I now have wonderful insurance and the first thing my gp did when I met with her was refer me to cardiologist for stress test and echocardiogram. All I am saying here is socialized medicine isn’t always the best I fear the US is headed in that direction and it scares me to death. We don’t wait for months to see doctors or get treatments though except at Kaiser.
in the US there is Medicare (65 and up) and Medicaid (low income). There is the government funded Medicare and Medicaid and then you can get supplemental private insurance to cover what they don’t. It works fabulous for me. I had a surgical MiniMaze by a cardiac surgeon last year in Houston Texas. I believe the cost is around $160K. I paid -0- out of pocket with my supplemental plan.
I would never have been able to have the surgery had I been with Kaiser because you can’t go out if Kaiser for any treatment.
Strikes and heart issues often result when something breaks free…then lodges in a narrowing..yes also sudden increase in blood pressure can “crack” a calcified section… but you must known that taking K2 will remove some if not all calcium laid down in tissue and put it back where it belongs…calcium does carry in the serum when you have low thyroid or high inflammation… calcium is not the bogeyman here… surface chemistry starts with inflammation…
It’s just an algorithm. It doesn’t consider individual risk because it’s not set up to do that.
The statins recommendation is also made along similar lines ie population risk as opposed to individual risk. My husband’s cholesterol was 5.1 but he has no other risk factors so not considered “high” in that context. For someone with a pre existing condition the recommendation may be different, but that’s based on population data.
Most GPs would be amenable to trying lifestyle changes for 6 months or so to see if it helps. It’s not so much they are pushing drugs onto people because the NHS and GPs in particular are under pressure to cut their prescription bills. It’s more a case of it possibly being a dereliction of care if they don’t offer it to someone who meets the prescribing threshold. And it is always a choice
It’s not a personal failing if our cholesterol is high, nor are we anything special if our cholesterol is low or right in the middle of normal. A lot of it is determined by our genetics anyway. I’m guessing 5.3 is about average. Just make sure you fast before a test because some doctors say you don’t have to now but it only creates fluctuations and inconsistencies.
Your so right Anne. The NHS though is only struggling because they have been under resourced for years coupled with lucrative contracts given to private companies who creamed if the easy to treat cases taking the money, leaving the NHS to deal with complex cases on insufficient funding. This has been going on for years despite us all. Paying a lot into the system. We also have an aging population which is top heavy to the rest of the younger generations.... Though they had decades to plan for this our gov did Ostrich instead & now it's upon us the underfunded NHS can't cope with the demand. Recipe for disaster. I'd like to know where all the money went when we have been paying into it for years. Sorry makes me so cross.
well I’m 47 with a heart age 78. I wouldn’t stress that hard you’re already winning. Hate to put it this way, but on the BHF section there’s literally hundreds of us under 60 hoping to make it through the next 10-20 years. Ps higher cholesterol in the over 65s is actually an indicator to a longer life the converse of this is true in people under 50. Live well .. you’re already winning I’m sure you can do another 20 years ! 💪🏽🙌🏼🙏🏽
I'm in the U.S., where medical care is only as good as your ability to pay, and drug costs whatever monopolistic manufacturers can get away with and medical bankruptcies are sadly common. The U.K. is more compassionate, just too influenced by the same thuggish, dishonest greed that has come to power here.
and unfortunately the drugs coming in now are FILLED with unnecessary inactive ingredients that are getting people sick. I have a new script for BP meds and I'm anxious as it has about 10 more "inactive" add'l drugs in it than my old brand 😳😳 which is no longer available.
Thank you Anne. I've just spoken to her husband. She seems to have had pneumonia and is being treated well now she's finally in the right place. Our fingers are crossed.
We don't have Medicare in New Zealand and I am not privately insured but I have had 3 ablations for afib and many cardioversion,angiograms echocardiograms etc and charged nothing.It might be the cardiologist I have or the part of NZ I live in but apart from a fee to go and see your GP medicines are free as well.
Also uniquely all accidents are covered by ACC so you are treated as a private patient seen quickly operated on quickly and I don't think there's another country in the world that offers this even to tourists
By controlling AF in H/Rate and BP I am sure your age expectancy would be higher.
My cholesterol is 6.3 - higher than you and 1.5 good cholesterol.
My national heart specialist would rather see me at Cholesterol 4.0.
He tested me physically and got a soft systolic heart murmur. My echo shows LV chamber enlarged. So no ablation.
I am sure being good with meds by controlling your AF and anti-coagulant your life expectancy is higher.
My Mum lived until 93 and died of a urine infection which undiagnosed went on as kidney failure - in a retirement care home! Father 83 Lymphoma and heart failure.
There is another test for heart age and that is egr...... forgotten I'll get back.
Remember that research says now have a low dose of avorstatin daily no more than 20mg. Even 10mg brought mine down by 1.0.
That wil make your doctor happy and in a month retest. Dr told me it was a genes affecting my cholesterol against food.
I hope this helps. Remember exercise and low fat diet best whilst taking your meds, Sambaqui.
I have the same issue last July but I am on 7.1 . I have never been asked to go on statins before despite being up to 6.9/ 7.0 previously, owing to the other ratios being good. I asked what has changed, and did not get a satisfactory answer, so I am still not on them. I checked calculator and decided the fact I had AFib was the cause of the low life expectancy. But I have not had AFib since my ablation in Jan 2018, snd am not on any meds!I elected to try to reduce my score by excercise. weight loss, plant sterols and better diet. I did this before in 2013/15 and got it to 6.1. So still worse than you!
Anyway I have lost 16 llbssince new year, have done some more excercise, but failed on my personal target of running, and have continued the sterols, but have no idea if this has lowered my cholesterol as I have had no follow up!
Excess calcium in your bloods stream is deposited in your arteries in combination, with the Cholesterol. However what I have read is that a lack of Vit K2 means the calcium cannot be deposited in your bones, which is where it should go. The speculation is that over the years older people have been given calcium supplements to help against osteoporosis, have been given Vit D3 supplements to aid calcium absorption into the blood stream, but the fact that people are short of K2 has been missed means it is not being transported to the bones. So the excess ends up in your arteries. So the "cure" for one ailment us the cause of another!
And if the calcium does not get to the bones it does not help the osteoporosis problem either!
The info I have heard is people are short of K2 as the main source is from meat, so non meat eaters can Have a k2 shortage. But also mass production of beef cattle means that they are fed grain, whereas naturally they eat grass. Grain does not generate the same amount of K2 in the meat as the natural grass diet.
I AM NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED so I don t know what is true.
However I also understand there is also little research into this as vit K2 cannot make money for big pharma, and as adopting K2 supplement strategy would reduce the need for statins, research is hardy likely to be funded by big pharma either!
Personally I am taking D3 and K2 supplements and eating cheese as part of my diet. But I have no idea if I am taking enough anyway!
I doubt very many people who are medically trained know as much as you have written in your post about calcium /vitD/ K2 interactions. When I was hospitalised with my first afib attack and put on Préviscan (the anti vit K anticoagulant that was used here before DOACs became de rigeur) I asked my cardiologist's registrar which vit K it antagonised and if it was K2 what effect this would have on calcium metabolism. He hadn't a clue what I was talking about.
I read about a study that showed that 200mg a day of K2 had reversed artery calcium scores significantly. Aged cheeses are also a good source of K2 but probably only if from pastured cattle. I eat a variety of cheese including one made from a sheep / goat milk mixture from the Pyrénées. The beef round here might be grain finished but are grass fed for most of their life. As we can see from the cows in the field at the bottom of our garden.
However I did not start it for this reason. I started it owing to the POSSIBILITY that high dose Vit D3 prevented/reduced COVID infections/severity. In order to take the D3 dose I had to take the K2 to ensure that the D3 was "used" up and was not excessive/ dangerous, which by accident led me to the calcium/D3/K2 mechanism! I was also interested in losing weight, which led me to fasting. One of those US heart doctors who fasts is Dr Pradeep Jamnadas. However I saw a video of his lecture on "The Fat lies" ( quite long but very worth watching)where he takes apart the reason we (westerners esp Americans) eat what we eat and shows the original research and reinterprets some of it . One part of this is the statement that if you take 2 people, one who ate meat and one who ate carbohydates for a meal then test their blood for Lipids after their meal, it is the carbohydrate eaters with the high lipids!
He also has a video of coronary artery disease in South Asians ( in the USA) . They suffer worse athelerscrerosis than European Americans . That also delves into Western diets (ln that vid there are scans of heart/blood vessels with athlersclerosis.)
There are several other Doctors on the same trail. Indeed Jamnadas quotes some of them .
Incidentally I have done the fasting , not as severe as The Dr advises, but most days (I am weak) 16 hours from 20:00 to 12:00. I have lost over 7.5 kg and am the lightest I have been in 20+ years. Iinitially I was doing more excerise, some running, I stopped drinking alcohol and was trying to have smaller portions. For the last 6 weeks following the start of the good weather, I am eating more , drinking more beer, less running, but I have NOT put any weight back on! ( unlike ANY of my previous lose weight diets) . I am eating more meat/fish/cheese and less rice/pasta/bread but not massively.
I cannot fast as I get swiftly dropping blood sugar after about 6/ 7 hrs during the day without food. That has brought on an afib attack more than once. It is not just subcontinentals who move to Western countries that get atherosclerosis and diabetes. It happens in India too. I have read that there is a genetic tendency for diabetes but then huge plates of rice and tropical fruits won't help. There is very widespread vit D deficiency there despite no lack of sunshine because apart from peasants too much sun exposure is avoided as paler skin is prized. The Indian friends we had when we lived in Birmingham could put away masses more food than we could. When we went to South India we were constantly hungry because we could not eat enough quantity of the vegan food we stuck too .
Yes - Diabetes is covered in much detail in the lectures, most particulary insulin resisitance and the build up of visceral fat caused my too much sugar. Jamnadas is big on vegetables but is no fan of fruit owing to the sugar. His view is the only reason there are fruits ( evolutionary wise) is because animals that hibernate need them to put on body fat prior to winter hibernation, so its a simbiotic relationship in thos cases as the animals distributes the seeds in the fruit.
I do not see how plants like mango and pineapple which need tropical conditions could have evolved in a non tropical climate. Also we share a huge part of our genome with our ape ancestors who would have eaten tropical fruits . But animals tend not to overeat when left to their own devices.
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.
If you are fit and healthy -- how dangerous is AF? Maybe not as much as we've been led to believe...
Anyone got the real stats re strokes or is it just general one liner for all AF sufferers 
