Now I am really afraid to stay on Eliquis....today was an eye opener

Not sure if I posted here on this or not...but Dr. Natale's assistant said that they don't use the CHAD score anymore to determine whether or not to take you off the Eliquis - they use the TEE. I am hoping to get another one done sometime in the next few months and then see what they have to say....

Not loving the idea of being on a blood thinner, after seeing what a big deal it can be if you get injured...makes me feel very vulnerable as you never know if someone is going to rear end your car or what might happen. For my brother in law, it was just a fall in his kitchen.

Geezzz...Barb

Quote
Catherine
Carey, go back and read the OP’s post and stop inserting your script into what YOU think has happened to him.

It's not my script. They removed his spleen and kidney following a fall, which clearly indicates those organs were severely injured. That sort of injury will produce severe bleeding regardless of anticoagulants, and surgeons don't remove organs because of Eliquis.

Quote

I don’t appreciate your accusing me of “fear mongering” and censoring the forum. Instead, I would have hoped you would have addressed some of the points I made; for example, you bandy about the positive research and data, etc. on a drug that is comparatively new, and you express no concern about it being dispensed without an antidote.

Nobody's censoring the forum. I'm sorry if I offended you, but making alarming statements that aren't entirely factual comes across as fear mongering and can have that effect on people new to afib. I'm just asking you to consider the audience and stick to facts when you make alarming statements. I didn't address your concerns point by point because I don't have hours to spend composing a reply full of the scientific citations that would be required to address them.

You know that most drugs don't have antidotes, right? So I'm not sure what you think is special about Eliquis or what you're looking for on that point. It's quite possible that withholding NOACs from the market due to a lack of antidote would have resulted in more bleeds and more deaths in the intervening years since they have a lower bleed risk than warfarin. I'm getting tired of repeating this but warfarin has a much longer half life than any of the NOACs and the antidote takes upwards of 12 hours to become effective. It's no panacea.

And above all, an antidote is now available for Eliquis and Xarelto, which is pretty important info you should have mentioned. It's omissions like that that made your posts seem rather fear monger-y.

Quote

I might have mentioned, in a past post, when my husband was hospitalized after valve replacement surgery, the gentleman in the next bed was bleeding internally and for fwo days his doctors were unable to find the source. He was scheduled for exploratory surgery the next morning. He was on Xarelto and they had no antidote.

Xarelto has a half life of 5-9 hours, so it wasn't even a factor by the end of day one. Sometimes people bleed and sometimes they can't find the source. It happens but fortunately its rarely fatal. Please don't imply that Xarelto was the cause of his bleeding because it wasn't. Anticoagulants do not cause bleeding.

Anticoagulants do not cause bleeding. -------

Once bleeding starts anticoagulants promotes it.

Quote
Elizabeth
Anticoagulants do not cause bleeding. -------

Once bleeding starts anticoagulants promotes it.

Well, that's closer to the truth but "promotes" isn't the word I would use. They delay coagulation exactly as the name implies. They do not cause, initiate, promote or do anything else. They only delay coagulation.

I know it seems like I'm mincing words here but there's a widespread fear of anticoagulants that is irrational and unrealistic and I don't think we should promote it. Even more irrational and unrealistic is the notion that warfarin is some sort of safe haven, a good old "tried and true" drug that's safe. No it's not. It's less safe than the NOACs and until someone has evidence to the contrary, I think we're doing people a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

Quote
GaryPNW
One additional comment on risk of blood clots with Afib. On the question of, does someone with controlled afib need to be on an anticoagulant, my EP replied that at that time (about 3 years ago) studies had not been able to show a statistical difference in the risk of clotting between controlled and uncontrolled populations.

That's why CHADs doesn't differentiate, it applies to Afib whether controlled or not. So your EP statement in no way negates the evidence for use of anticoagulant with Afib.

What does it mean to be controlled in this context, did you ask him/her? Controlled as in duration and frequency? Controlled as in having TEE with certain results?

There are recent studies which are attempting to assess risk with stratified Afib. Until that's done, self-supplementing as an alternative to NOACs because of some parameter like elevated blood viscosity (even if it could be reliably and repeatably measured) and/or your perception of how controlled your Afib is completely lacks evidence compared to CHADs or TEE. With regard to the latter, I have confidence Natale has the evidence to support his approach.

Quote
tobherd
Not sure if I posted here on this or not...but Dr. Natale's assistant said that they don't use the CHAD score anymore to determine whether or not to take you off the Eliquis - they use the TEE.

I'm guessing this (not using CHAD score) is for those who've had their LAA worked on in an ablation, not the overall patient population. In that case, Shannon goes into the TEE parameters in this post <[www.afibbers.org]

George

I think George is right. With an isolated LAA your CHADS score is secondary to the TEE results, but for everyone else I think they still do use CHADS.

Quote
safib

One additional comment on risk of blood clots with Afib. On the question of, does someone with controlled afib need to be on an anticoagulant, my EP replied that at that time (about 3 years ago) studies had not been able to show a statistical difference in the risk of clotting between controlled and uncontrolled populations.

That's why CHADs doesn't differentiate, it applies to Afib whether controlled or not. So your EP statement in no way negates the evidence for use of anticoagulant with Afib.

What does it mean to be controlled in this context, did you ask him/her? Controlled as in duration and frequency? Controlled as in having TEE with certain results?

There are recent studies which are attempting to assess risk with stratified Afib. Until that's done, self-supplementing as an alternative to NOACs because of some parameter like elevated blood viscosity (even if it could be reliably and repeatably measured) and/or your perception of how controlled your Afib is completely lacks evidence compared to CHADs or TEE. With regard to the latter, I have confidence Natale has the evidence to support his approach.

Sorry safib, I can see my post didn't make the point very well. Since I had had two persistent AF episodes, my EP was urging me to begin taking Eloquis.(apixaban) to prevent the risk of clotting. At the time I had a CHAD score that would not have indicated blood thinners as appropriate. I posed the question to him that since I had only had 2 episodes of AF over a period of 7 years, why would I need a blood thinner since I was most always in NSR? His response was that the limited studies at the time did not show that a person with previous episodes of AF but not in AF would have any less risk of clotting than a person experiencing AF, therefore anticoagulants would be appropriate in my particular case. He admitted that with larger studies in the future differences in clotting risk among AF groups may emerge. After resisting for some period of time, I did finally relent after my 3rd episode of persistent AF and cardioversion, I had previously been on a regimen of one 325 aspirin per day for several years (which I felt totally comfortable with) but I did notice less bleeding from skin cuts and flossing after switching to eloquis, which is logical when considering the differences in clotting factors that the two drugs affect.

Of note, the 2019 afib guidelines completely removed aspirin. It has no use in afib.

Then why does dr Natalie say to take an aspirin for life when you have a Watchman? Or if not for life , as I know you will say, than why does he say to take it for a certain length of time?

Liz

Probably because aspirin is useful in cases where platelets encounter anything other than smooth endothelium, like stents or an occlusion device.

Quote
wolfpack
Probably because aspirin is useful in cases where platelets encounter anything other than smooth endothelium, like stents or an occlusion device.

That's the answer. Aspirin is useful for preventing platelets from clumping on foreign objects, but for afib treatment it's no longer considered to have any role.

so reading thru the comments because I really want to take ibuprofen for this potential kidney stone or whatever pain it is. (appt w/ urologist tomorrow.) I take xeralto but looking at that scoring thing as i understand it.. If you have or had afib that is factored in. The female part was taken out. So i don't need to count that. But i do have high BP. So that is just 1 point? Not 2 (for the female part). None of the other factors seem to fit for me. I did have some problems when i was on metrop (and had to take 3 days of lasix) but i truly think that was the drug b/c i am fine now. My BNP blood test went down way below normal. Plus outside even the kidney stone issue- do i NEED to take this for a YEAR (at least?) i have 2 friends who have afib.. one is on dofetilide (like me) and went in the hospital to get on it- and did not go home on any blood thinner. THe other friend goes in and out. She takes solotel PIP and elaquis for a few days after.. then stops both. Is there an SOP?

Quote
bettylou4488
so reading thru the comments because I really want to take ibuprofen for this potential kidney stone or whatever pain it is. (appt w/ urologist tomorrow.) I take xeralto but looking at that scoring thing as i understand it.. If you have or had afib that is factored in. The female part was taken out. So i don't need to count that. But i do have high BP. So that is just 1 point? Not 2 (for the female part). None of the other factors seem to fit for me. I did have some problems when i was on metrop (and had to take 3 days of lasix) but i truly think that was the drug b/c i am fine now. My BNP blood test went down way below normal. Plus outside even the kidney stone issue- do i NEED to take this for a YEAR (at least?) i have 2 friends who have afib.. one is on dofetilide (like me) and went in the hospital to get on it- and did not go home on any blood thinner. THe other friend goes in and out. She takes solotel PIP and elaquis for a few days after.. then stops both. Is there an SOP?

Isn't the'Eliquis needed if and before and when a person goes into Afib?

With the new guidelines, I'm also a 1 (HBP).

I have had friends go off of it too when they have been without an episode for 6 months to a year. I really don't understand why because I still think the fact that you have Afib should be a consideration.

Quote
bettylou4488
do i NEED to take this for a YEAR (at least?)

What's your afib situation? Are you having episodes? If not, when was the last one? You say you're a CHADs-Vasc 1, so that means anticoagulants are a judgement call. The biggest factor in that decision is going to be afib activity.

The other question is how long do you expect to need ibuprofen? It's not that ibuprofen is completely contraindicated; it's just that it shouldn't be taken with anticoagulants long term. I've been told by two EPs that taking it for a few days is okay, but a few weeks is not.

And, really, if it's not going to be long term, I'd go for the Norco. You won't become addicted in a few days or even weeks, and with kidney stones you might need a lot more than ibuprofen. I've seen people passing kidney stones who were in horrible pain even with morphine.

I was emailing with a guy in New Zealand and he was paying $30 a month for Eliquis. The high prices in the U.S. are to take up the slack from those really inexpensive costs in other countries.

I've looked into the comments of many people who are taking Eliquis. Most of them don't like it. Like many things you mainly hear from the people who tend to get relatively positive results. You rarely hear from the people having problems after the drug gets into the public.
[ethicalnag.org]

Check this out. They're already in the 2nd stage trials.
[www.prnewswire.com]

The article said that 20% of all strokes are because of AF, so what is the 80% due to?

Liz

Quote
alxndr01
I've looked into the comments of many people who are taking Eliquis. Most of them don't like it.

I don't think that's true. I know a lot of people on Eliquis and the other NOACs and the vast majority have no side effects from it at all.

Quote
Elizabeth
The article said that 20% of all strokes are because of AF, so what is the 80% due to?

All those other things the CHADS-Vasc score measures.

But keep in mind that only about 5% of the population has afib, so for 5% of the population to account for 20% of the strokes is a pretty damn big number.

Quote
alxndr01
I was emailing with a guy in New Zealand and he was paying $30 a month for Eliquis. The high prices in the U.S. are to take up the slack from those really inexpensive costs in other countries.

I've looked into the comments of many people who are taking Eliquis. Most of them don't like it. Like many things you mainly hear from the people who tend to get relatively positive results. You rarely hear from the people having problems after the drug gets into the public.
[ethicalnag.org]

Check this out. They're already in the 2nd stage trials.
[www.prnewswire.com]

Don't know about NZ, Alex. In Australia the government subsidizes approved pharmaceuticals. Don't know if our government has a special deal with the manufacturers?

Carey said:
But keep in mind that only about 5% of the population has afib, so for 5% of the population to account for 20% of the strokes is a pretty damn big number.

The CDC said 2 percent and 9 percent that adds up to 11% little more than 5%

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 2 percent of people younger than 65 years old have AFib, while about 9 percent of people ages 65 and older have it.

Liz

Quote
Carey

The article said that 20% of all strokes are because of AF, so what is the 80% due to?


All those other things the CHADS-Vasc score measures.

.

I don't believe it is currently known what is the cause of the 20% or the 80% who have strokes. It would require prospective studies which stratify groups into afib and other risk factors (age, obesity, hypertension, etc.) which would show causation. These are very complex factorial experiments. Or observational studies where the other risk factors are adequately controlled which would only show correlation. Maybe something has been done, but I doubt it is conclusive. References?

Let's put it a different way. The elderly which dominate the afib population is full of people with risk factors. Think about the problem of separating all of that out to find the cause of the stroke. You can't simply count the fraction of those who stroke with afib, etc.. There is also research which shows the lack of temporal correlation of afib episodes and stroke, which is very puzzling. And then there is the question of what it means to have afib

I would still follow CHADs recommendation and with NOACs while waiting for more data and a better alternative.

Quote
Elizabeth
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 2 percent of people younger than 65 years old have AFib, while about 9 percent of people ages 65 and older have it.

Right. So that averages out to about 5%. You don't add the two percentages.

Well then, there are 9% of people over 65. I also believe it is pretty hard to say with certainty how many people have strokes due to AF and also if they were taking a anticoagulants at the time. It doesn't state on a death certificate if a person had AF or exactly what they died of.

The vast majority of afibbers on this forum have drastically altered their eating habits and lifestyles for the better so vastly diminishing their risk of stroke from all causes.

Shouldn't that count to get a point or two deduction from the CHADS score?

The CHADS scoring system is a very blunt instrument and being a bit cynical is more to cover the medical professions rear ends from lawsuits as in “I was strictly following the guidelines”.

Quote
Dean
The vast majority of afibbers on this forum have drastically altered their eating habits and lifestyles for the better so vastly diminishing their risk of stroke from all causes.

They have? Not sure if that's true and how you would know it, but even if it is true, what's the stroke rate for people on this forum?

Quote
Carey

The vast majority of afibbers on this forum have drastically altered their eating habits and lifestyles for the better so vastly diminishing their risk of stroke from all causes.

They have? Not sure if that's true and how you would know it, but even if it is true, what's the stroke rate for people on this forum?

From what we can tell its about Zero.

"From what we can tell" would be the key phrase there given there's no way to know if someone here has a stroke. But my question was really more rhetorical. I don't know why Dean thinks the vast majority of people here have drastically altered their eating habits and lifestyle. I rather doubt they have. I also don't know why he thinks doing so reduces stroke risks. A few lifestyle changes will, such as losing weight to avoid diabetes, quitting smoking, and so forth, but I'm unaware of any data showing that dietary changes can alter stroke risk.

Well Carry,

If you change your life style, cut out alcohol, reduce weight, lower blood pressure, eat low carb, get off the couch etc.
You will reduce your afib load and change your CHAD score to a point where you won't need any blood thinners which will stop its calcification action.
A better alteritive then would be nattokinase or Natto as well. It's at least thinning my blood and has lowered my figrinogen level, it's also making my finger and toe nails grow faster. Which means that calcium which does the damage to your artries and causes strokes is now going where it belongs, to my bones.

Some more info for you Carry.

Natto. There isn't pill like it

NATTO ADVANTAGES, the wonder food.

1, probiotic.

There is up to 1 billion probiotics in a gram of natto, therefore in 40 grams of natto you get about 40 billion probiotics.


2, vitamin K2.

Natto is high in vitamin K2. In 40 grams of natto there is about 400 mcg of K2, which is enough for 3 days.
Vitamin K2 has 2 enzymes,

Matrix Gla-protein (MGP)
Osteocalcin
“Gla” is short for glutamic acid. Glutamic acid is imported into the cells in the wall of your arteries, where it binds to calcium and removes it from the lining of your blood vessels.

Once removed from your blood vessel lining, vitamin K2 then facilitates the intergration of that calcium into your bone matrix by handing it over to osteocalcin,. The osteocalcin then helps cement the calcium in place.


Coronary artery calcification increases atrial fibrillation therefore redirecting calcium to where it belongs reduces afib.



3, the farmented soybean.

The soybean contains genistein which has antiarrhythmic properties, among other benifits.



4. Nattokinase

One of the best known effects of Nattokinase is that it reduces clotting in blood by dissolving fibrin.

When fibrin escapes to blood, it binds platelets together resulting in a clot.

In young people, production of plamin - an agent that reduces synthesis of fibrin - is at its maximum. However, as people get older and in some disease conditions, less plasmin is produced thus the risk of developing clots. Nattokinase contains agents that work like plasmin and therefore is used in place of plasmin. It is also 4 times more effective than plasmin.

By countering the production of angiotensin converting hormone (ACE), (which reduces the elasticity of blood vessels; consequently, the vessels become narrower. Narrow vessel lead to high blood pressure.) Nattokinase makes the blood vessels soft and supple , it increases the supply of blood to all parts of the body and lowers blood presure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2019 01:21PM by colindo.

Quote
colindo
Well Carry,

If you change your life style, cut out alcohol, reduce weight, lower blood pressure, eat low carb, get off the couch etc.
You will reduce your afib load and change your CHAD score to a point where you won't need any blood thinners which will stop its calcification action.

I've never had a weight problem, my BP was fine up until a couple of years ago, I eat a good diet, I exercise regularly including 100+ miles per week on a bike, and I stopped all alcohol for a while to see if that mattered. Nope. Made no difference. This whole theory that afib is a lifestyle disease is a crock, in my opinion. Lifestyle can influence it and make it better or worse, but it's not a cause.

Natto is fine and dandy but I've seen no evidence that it's as effective as warfarin nor have I see safety or dosing studies. So until I do, proven anticoagulants with known safety and dosing profiles are my preference. I don't believe they're harmful and I don't think natto is a miracle drug.

PS- Could I ask the favor that you spell my name correctly? It's right there at the top of all my posts.

Sorry Carey, spelling is not my greatest strength.

Nattokinase. I wonder if there was money to be made from it, would we see evidence of its effectiveness?

Quote
colindo
Well Carry,

If you change your life style, cut out alcohol, reduce weight, lower blood pressure, eat low carb, get off the couch etc.
You will reduce your afib load and change your CHAD score to a point where you won't need any blood thinners which will stop its calcification action.
A better alteritive then would be nattokinase or Natto as well. It's at least thinning my blood and has lowered my figrinogen level, it's also making my finger and toe nails grow faster. Which means that calcium which does the damage to your artries and causes strokes is now going where it belongs, to my bones.

Some more info for you Carry.

Natto. There isn't pill like it

NATTO ADVANTAGES, the wonder food.

So you are advocating ignoring CHADs and not taking prescribed anticoagulants, and instead proceeding with trying to lower CHADs enough that eventually you no longer need to take anticoagulants (according to CHADs!). You then follow this by the natto (miracle drug). The problem with your plan is there is no rigorous validation of any of it. In addition, there is plenty of risk in the interim while you are trying to reduce CHADs, if you can do it at all. This in addition to the unknown safety and dosing and efficacy data for natto.

These kinds of approaches which go against the best evidenced-based medical opinion are ill-informed and potentially dangerous.

The best i ever got from one Cardiologists was - eat a good diet . The other two EPs never mentioned anything about diet
Based on my very limited experience and the likelihood that the majority of patients go with 'Professional advise' i suspect drastic diet and lifestyle changes aren't commonly implemented?

Have been wondering Colindo [Which means that calcium which does the damage to your artries and causes strokes is now going where it belongs, to my bones.]
It's because my understanding is that calcium deposition only happens once the intima (endothelium) is damaged and some lipoprotein (small LDL?) enters and settles in the media which in turn causes other reactions - like calcium deposition. That in itself is not the immediate problem.
Isn't the real danger inflammation and when that plaque gets 'liquefied' and the gunk (technical term ) enters the blood stream and forms a clot....

Quote
colindo
Nattokinase. I wonder if there was money to be made from it, would we see evidence of its effectiveness?

Well, we'd at least see research into it. See, that's the rub. Industry will only fund research if there's a profit in it for them, so that leaves it to governments and non-profit organizations to fund the rest. The trouble is, those research dollars are limited and there's fierce competition for them. You're never going to get a study for something like natto funded when it competes with treatments for things like cancer, HIV, malaria, Ebola and so on.

It's possible that someday natto could be used in a way that's patentable and could end up being turned into an anticoagulant. Lots of drugs are made from common plants and substances that can't be patented on their own.

Quote
safib

Well Carry,

If you change your life style, cut out alcohol, reduce weight, lower blood pressure, eat low carb, get off the couch etc.
You will reduce your afib load and change your CHAD score to a point where you won't need any blood thinners which will stop its calcification action.
A better alteritive then would be nattokinase or Natto as well. It's at least thinning my blood and has lowered my figrinogen level, it's also making my finger and toe nails grow faster. Which means that calcium which does the damage to your artries and causes strokes is now going where it belongs, to my bones.

Some more info for you Carry.

Natto. There isn't pill like it

NATTO ADVANTAGES, the wonder food.


So you are advocating ignoring CHADs and not taking prescribed anticoagulants, and instead proceeding with trying to lower CHADs enough that eventually you no longer need to take anticoagulants (according to CHADs!). You then follow this by the natto (miracle drug). The problem with your plan is there is no rigorous validation of any of it. In addition, there is plenty of risk in the interim while you are trying to reduce CHADs, if you can do it at all. This in addition to the unknown safety and dosing and efficacy data for natto.

These kinds of approaches which go against the best evidenced-based medical opinion are ill-informed and potentially dangerous.

If you have a CHADs score of 2 you have a 2% chance of a stroke, then if you take a blood thinner you have a 3% chance of a blood bleed. So with those odds doing nothing is a good bet or taking nattokinase is going to at lest improve the odds.

Can see your reasoning there, Colindo.
FWIW, i had a bilateral inguinal hernia repaired 10 days ago (they told me that i didn't go into AF during the laproscopic procedure which lasted a bit over 1 hour). However, when i awoke from the anesthesia i asked the nurse about it and she said that i'm in and out of AF. So i asked her if it showed a P wave and she said that it does show one . i'd guess my HR was somwhat irregular. Wasn't in a position to see the monitor.
Had to go off eliquis 3 days prior and 10 days post. Have since resumed my daily Natto, raw garlic and tumeric (some fresh root) and i intend to stay off eliquis until i have an AF episode again (hope it will never happen)

Quote
colindo
If you have a CHADs score of 2 you have a 2% chance of a stroke, then if you take a blood thinner you have a 3% chance of a blood bleed.

Strokes and bleeds aren't equal things so you're comparing apples and oranges. The majority of bleeds are GI bleeds and are easily controlled. The only bleeds to really worry about are cranial bleeds, and that's going to be a much smaller number.

Never the less 98% chance of not having a stroke are good odds. No one is going to guarantee taking blood thinners is going to improve those odds much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2019 09:42PM by colindo.

Quote
colindo
Never the less 98% chance of not having a stroke are good odds. No one is going to guarantee blood thinners is going to improve those odds much.

An ablation has about a 2% risk of serious complications. So you think having an ablation every year of your life is good odds? You might want to do the math and ask what those odds are after 10 years (answer: 18% risk).

I don't know what you mean about guaranteeing blood thinners improving those odds. There's no question they reduce stroke risk. I think you're really reaching to justify substituting lifestyle changes for anticoagulants. Go ahead if that's what you want to do, but I think you should make it clear to people reading this forum that the risks are extreme.

The thing is Carey some of us don't believe your theories. My sister started blood thinners 12 months ago, today she in the hospital with a stroke and blood bleed. Thinners didn't help to stop her stroke.

Carey said the following: I've never had a weight problem, my BP was fine up until a couple of years ago, I eat a good diet, I exercise regularly including 100+ miles per week on a bike, and I stopped all alcohol for a while to see if that mattered. Nope. Made no difference. This whole theory that afib is a lifestyle disease is a crock, in my opinion. Lifestyle can influence it and make it better or worse, but it's not a cause.

Gee Carey do you think the AHA is blowing smoke? Although I do agree that AF is in our DNA. But, what do you think of the following? There is also merit in lifestyle.

More bad news for diet soda lovers: Drinking two or more of any kind of artificially sweetened drinks a day is linked to an increased risk of clot-based strokes, heart attacks and early death in women over 50, according to a new study by the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association.

Liz

Colindo:

I am sorry to hear about your sister, hopefully she will recover fully. I havn't kept count but there has been quite a few people that have come out and told of their relatives and also themselves that have had strokes and have been on a anticoagulant. You know a number of years ago my doc. put me on Coumadin, I couldn't take it as it made my eyes bloodshot, and blood pooling in my thumb, quitting the Coumadin led to my coughing up some blood clots, I was lucky that I did. I do not advise anyone as to take or not take a bloodthinner, we have to decide on all info that we can get.

Liz

Quote
Carey
This whole theory that afib is a lifestyle disease is a crock, in my opinion. Lifestyle can influence it and make it better or worse, but it's not a cause.

I concur.

I got AF at 6’0”, 170 lb, BP 115/70, running 35 miles/wk, eating a zero-fat diet and, of course, not smoking. What was I supposed to do to rend the “Scarlet AF” from my chest?

My dad got AF at age 50. My mom at age 71. Hmmm...

If poor diet and holding down sofas from the deleterious effects of anti-gravity were the sole cause of AF, it’d be a lot more prevalent than 5% of the population!

Quote
wolfpack

This whole theory that afib is a lifestyle disease is a crock, in my opinion. Lifestyle can influence it and make it better or worse, but it's not a cause.


I concur.

I got AF at 6’0”, 170 lb, BP 115/70, running 35 miles/wk, eating a zero-fat diet and, of course, not smoking. What was I supposed to do to rend the “Scarlet AF” from my chest?

My dad got AF at age 50. My mom at age 71. Hmmm...

If poor diet and holding down sofas from the deleterious effects of anti-gravity were the sole cause of AF, it’d be a lot more prevalent than 5% of the population!

What's running 35 miles a week doing to your heart, Carey did much the same thing?

I can only go by my own experence with lifestyle changes, getting my weight down, lowering my blood presure etc. was a big help to my afib burden. And I have not needed an ablation.
I have gone from 2 to 3 afib events a month to 3 events in the last 9 months and 2 of those was due to bad magnesium.

So telling forum members that lifestyle changs is a crock is not good advise. BTW not all afibbers are like yourself and Carey.

We read about people that do a lot of exercise which leads to their getting AF, actually running is not supposed to be that good for you. I don't recall the name of that guy that was a runner and wrote a book about it, he dropped dead I believe in his 50s, I knew a man that golfed at the club I golfed at, he was a runner, he too dropped dead while running, a fast walk is better. Sorry but a zero fat diet is not good for you, we do need fat, the cholesterol in our brain needs it. I don't mean bad fats, but olive oil, walnut oil, avocado oil, butter is ok. I also say that AF is in our DNA however, I may not have gotten AF if I hadn't taken too much thyroid meds which led to my being hyper and going into AF.
Liz

Quote
colindo
So telling forum members that lifestyle changs is a crock is not good advise. BTW not all afibbers are like yourself and Carey.

You misread me.

Lifestyle change IS a good choice, to the extent that a change can make a difference. I’m glad it did in your case.

I don’t believe any two afibbers are alike. We are all different. I simply reject the notion that lifestyle is to blame, all the time.

Agree with Liz, a zero fat diet is an unhealthy fad diet. Sadly, propaganda and junk science encouraged many to follow it

Quote
colindo
So telling forum members that lifestyle changs is a crock is not good advise.

I didn't say that. I said lifestyle can affect afib and make it better or worse; it's just not the cause. You can and should improve your lifestyle to make your afib better. Just don't expect to cure it with lifestyle changes. Not going to happen.

Suggesting to forum members that ignoring CHADs and anticoagulants (or using the natto miracle drug instead) while attempting to make lifestyle changes is likely worse advise, or in any case has far less validation. It is wrong to minimize the cumulative and not just annualized risk for ischemic stroke with afib, which in addition has significantly worse outcomes in the afib versus non-afib stroke population. One could similarly suggest foregoing ablation based on bad experiences your personally know or heard about. This whole "experiment of one (or a few)" thing is really poor judgment when it comes to anticoagulants and stroke.

Carey, you said "This whole theory that afib is a lifestyle disease is a crock, in my opinion"

Safib, you assume an ablation is an option for all of us.
I also dont believe your stroke risk goes up yearly, and thats my opinion. Which used to be allowed on this forum.