Does Natalie do convergent ablations? I guess they don't use radiation in the procedure. Anyway I read about this a few years ago and wonder if this procedure is still being done.

My doctor is retiring and I have to find a new doc., they will help me and asked if I would want a Cardio or an EP the problem is that would be with U of M Michigan Hospital which is about an hours drive for me. I would like someone locally, they do have cardios and EPs at a hospital not too far from me. I am undecided as which way to go, would the U of M hospitals docs be better than my local cardios.

Quote
Elizabeth
Does Natalie do convergent ablations? I guess they don't use radiation in the procedure. Anyway I read about this a few years ago and wonder if this procedure is still being done.

Liz,

My understanding is that a convergent ablation is the combination of a mini-maze (a surgeon goes in through the chest and creates external lines on the heart) and a conventional catheter ablation. My recollection of what was reported by Shannon here is that a conventional Natale catheter ablation has a higher success rate than the convergent ones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2021 11:28PM by GeorgeN.

The U of M will have more and better doctors than your local ones, but do you really need better? The average EP can manage afib medically just fine. It's only when you consider ablation do you need the best of the best. If mine was only going to monitor my afib, prescribe drugs, etc, then I wouldn't drive a lot farther for a better one. I would, however, insist on an EP. Many general cardiologists are remarkably uninformed on afib treatment.

As for convergent ablations, they're like George said: a combination Maze procedure and catheter ablation. They do use radiation because they use fluoroscopy during the ablation. It's not a procedure I would choose or recommend simply because it's much more invasive, has a much longer recovery time, and comes with more than twice the risk, yet it's not superior to catheter ablation performed by an experienced EP.

Thanks Carey and George:

The hospital that has a couple of EPs locally were talking about doing a Convergent Ablation on You Tube, that was a few years ago, don't know if they are still doing ablations that way, they said they do not use radiation. I will do some checking on an EP locally.

L

There are ways to do ablations without fluoroscopy, which eliminates the radiation, but most EPs find that the benefits of fluoroscopy outweigh the trivial amount of radiation it delivers. I wouldn't make an ablation decision one way or the other based on whether they use fluoroscopy.

And keep in mind that the older you are, the less radiation matters because the harm it causes generally takes decades to appear. If you're in your 70s or older, it's unlikely any radiation you receive via x-rays, fluoroscopy, CT scans, flying on airplanes, etc. is going to produce any harm during your lifetime. It's the youngsters who need to be careful about minimizing radiation.

Can you suggest reading material which can in layman’s terms explain all the different radiation types and which amounts are dangerous?

Quote
Faith v.
Can you suggest reading material which can in layman’s terms explain all the different radiation types and which amounts are dangerous?

I don't have any good references offhand, but what's known as "ionizing radiation" is the only type that's dangerous. Like most things, dosage is the difference between safe and dangerous, and none of the dosages you'll receive in normal medical care are anywhere near dangerous levels. They're generally thousands of times short of dangerous levels. Simply taking an airline flight will expose you to more radiation than a chest x-ray. And no, it's not from the plane -- it's from the sun and being at higher altitudes where there's less atmosphere to filter out the sun's radiation..