In my earlier blog on oral Mg I mentioned I have been fortunate converting my long-standing persistent AF (2 years duration) to SR with my low risk, low cost protocol for almost 18 months.. As I described previously the protocol involves careful titration of a well absorbed, fast acting, oral Mg that maintains stable blood Mg levels needed for up to 20 weeks to convert to SR. The protocol emphasizes daily self monitoring of EKGs; remaining hydrated and testing my urine specific gravity occasionally (it should remain 1.020 or less) and monitoring potassium needs. All of it sounds routine and familiar except I made a deep research dive into the medical literature to discover underappreciated observations to support my protocol. I have wondered since I have been able to accomplish this without the need for ablations , medications, electric cardioversions whether my protocol could be implemented before interventions and continued after they are done to determine if AF recurrence rates might reduce. In order to determine if my thought has plausibility, individuals with planned ablations might help themselves by introducing my protocol to their EPs. If they are candidates for the protocol (most important do not have bradycardia, hypotension or chronic kidney disease),why not start on this protocol which has a lot less risk than cardiac ablations . My reasoning is this: Mg is an essential for the configuration of an enzyme (ATPase) in cardiac cells, especially pacemaker cells, to accelerate the catabolism (break down ) of high energy containing molecules (ATP) to provide energy for maintaining electrolyte pumps (Na/K/Calcium) that support cell membrane polarity for electrical impulse generation. When there is ongoing inflammation as with AF, cytokines(small proteins that encourage inflammation) are secreted from certain immune cells, and one cytokine in particular inhibits ATPase. Hence it is essential to replenish Mg inside cardiac cells of AF individuals who are almost always deficient in Mg in their heart cells. That would mean the EPs would be willing to take time to read the protocol and determine whether their patient is a candidate for the protocol. I imagine they will likely defer reading it because it will be viewed as quackery and non-scientific because it describes the experience of one individual. Reading the medical literature and the horrible stories on this forum about recurrences of AF after ablations, wouldn't a low-risk protocol be helpful in this regard? For those who do not know I am a physician ( clinical immunologist) who wrote about my heart story in a book on Amazon titled "Atrial Fibrillation: How a physician converted his atrial fibrillation with a low-risk, low-cost protocol". On line the cover shows a doctor holding binoculars . All of the above is based on facts and theory, but so far I haven't read about treatments that have been successful preventing AF recurrences after interventions, ablations and electrical cardioversions. just thinking out of the box. I have never been a supplement physician because they have no double blind studies to support their claims. I recognize the need for them as I am swimming upstream against conventional thinking. There are many single case reports that have impacted medical therapy and I believe my story could be one if cardiologists and EPs are willing to try my protocol for their own edifications. We all know that repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is maybe insanity. There is a need for fresh thinking within the cardiology profession to reappraise the value of Mg/K replacement which in the past has been inconsistent because it doesn't always work intravenously. That is the mental block in my opinion. If it doesn't work intravenously then it obviously cant work with oral supplements. So far I am either a unicorn or living proof that it can work.

EP's tend to be not particularly interested in this sort of thing. The patient would likely have to be motivated to try it on their own, and hope their EP at least acknowledges the trial of having worthwhile validity.

18 months success, isn't all that long, and then there are those that Mg supplementation makes their AFIB worse.

I wonder why Mg makes some people worse? This gives the EP an excuse for not advocating for this sort of thing.

I am 17 years into this, been there done that try to talk to EP's about these things. Went from permanent to persistent to paroxsimal to >18 months NSR with no Ablation or Meds.

So I am an outlier, and the methods I used were lucky and anecdotal. Or at times they have even denied my case history, as the "book" says it don't work this way.

The EP's already have their lucrative treating protocols backed up by studies. Also they can't deviated from accepted protocols in the hospitals in order to experiment.

Good luck on your quest.

To Anti-F

Thank you for being the first to respond to my topic. I am surprised that no one else has responded which make me think there is apathy believing that AF can only be treated with conventional therapies. I should mention I support conventional therapies especially for individuals with AF who experience serious or life threatening symptoms of AF. I am a representative of traditional medicine having treated many patients with asthma for example, with FDA approved medications. I can’t recall approving a supplement for asthma as the majority of supplements have misleading or false claims, are not manufactured under cGMP (current good manufacturing practices which is important to assure quality and quantity for each tablet) and rarely have published data that confirms absorption, time of action, maintaining stable blood levels and efficacy with safety data. Consequently I can understand the reluctance of Eps to read and implement my protocol even though it is low-risk and data has been corroborated by an independent statistician with a p<0.005, a probability indicating it is 1 out of 5000 that my results are by chance.

Now to respond to your comments:

1. I can not find any evidence that magnesium (Mg) can cause AF. My thought is if someone claims that occurrence, it is because they administered a Mg supplement that is poorly absorbed and/or for a short period of time and didn’t self-monitor their EKGs to determine if there were changes to sinus rhythm (SR). These issues are in my book, namely choosing the best Mg supplement; knowing one must self-monitor their EKGs daily (3-4 X a day) to know if they had occasionally been in SR or AF; and staying on the Mg supplement for an extended period of time because of the long half-life of Mg (6 weeks for someone not deficient in Mg and multiple 6 week half lives to replenish the deficiency of Mg in heart cells of AF individuals.)

2. It would be helpful if you would describe how you were able to convert to SR.


3. Eps especially have little motivation to consider a low-risk protocol which might actually help reduce the recurrences of AF following cardiac ablations. To quote an EP online , “ Mg deficiency correlates with a greater incidence of AF but Mg supplementation has not been shown to prevent AF, especially in patients with already normal Mg levels.” Unfortunately there are misleading comments in that statement.

a. Patients with deficiency of Mg in their heart cells observed in several scientific papers almost always have a normal blood level, because Mg in the blood compartment represents only 1 % of the total Mg stores in the human body.

b. Mg supplementation has received a bad reputation based of the inconsistent results with intravenous Mg sulfate. Essentially the attitude is if it didn’t work administered directly in the blood, it certainly can’t work administered orally . This fallacy occurs because Mg sulfate has a half life of 12 hours and at the most it is administered for 3 days. In contrast the Mg half-life is much longer as described above. Hence administering oral Mg to be effective must be continued for up to 20 weeks before one knows it is effective.

I realize I am swimming countercurrent to the prevailing attitudes that oral Mg can not be an option unless there is a double blind study proving my protocol. In the meantime, both the American and British cardiology guidelines suggest if someone experiences paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( up to seven days), if they don’t respond to anti-arrhythmic medications, then they are candidates for cardiac ablation. According to the American Heart Association guidelines for AF, . “In selected patients (generally younger with few comorbidities) with symptomatic paroxysmal AF in whom rhythm control is desired, catheter ablation is useful as first-line therapy to improve symptoms and reduce progression to persistent AF”. It isn’t clear but in my reading only 20-30% of PAF will progress to persistent AF within 5 years.
Now IMAGINE what if my low-risk protocol was an option to control the progression of PAF and potentially avoid cardiac ablation. In my case if I had I started my protocol 2 years prior when I had PAF which became long standing persistent, I might have controlled my AF earlier[/b]

[My hope is individuals with AF will become proactive and take my book to their cardiologists or EP – miracles happen, maybe they will decide to recommend the protocol.[/b[ I may repeat this long response as a topic so more people can read it.

Quote
Hugging
I may repeat this long response as a topic so more people can read it.

No, please don't do that.

I listen to responses. If u said that because you have a disagreement with anything said please mention it, but if you prefer I not repeat it for other reasons, my ears are open. I am here to pass on my experience and knowledge to hopefully help members with AF.

I don't disagree with something you said. I said it because we don't appreciate repeated posts here pushing an agenda. I understand that you have a protocol you think works and you want to inform others. That's fine. You've explained it and you've published a book, which I let you name. So you've done what you can to inform others. Leave it at that. If others ask you about it, then you're free to discuss and explain further, but please don't try to use this forum as a pulpit.

Carey
I’m sorry but after reading your story I was angry at the outrageous medical care you endured. It was frankly your story that stimulated me to write about the need to help others about my protocol. My experience is real and please understand I would never have written my story and jeopardized my 50 years of academic reputation unless my data was confirmed statistically. Realizing the countercurrents I doubt it will get traction. In any event I would like to remain collegial with you and wonder if u would tell me if u have remained free of AF. You should continue to tell your story to inform others of cautions about catheter ablation..

Quote
Hugging
. If they are candidates for the protocol (most important do not have bradycardia, hypotension or chronic kidney disease),why not start on this protocol which has a lot less risk than cardiac ablations . My reasoning is this: Mg is an essential for the configuration of an enzyme (ATPase) in cardiac cells, especially pacemaker cells, to accelerate the catabolism (break down ) of high energy containing molecules (ATP) to provide energy for maintaining electrolyte pumps (Na/K/Calcium) that support cell membrane polarity for electrical impulse generation.

Hugging

Why do you exclude those with bradycardia as candidates for the protocol?

Hi Quackertoo

Goody question. Mg can cause vasodilation and Mg sulfate infusions are used to treat hypertension associated with eclampsia with pregnant women. By vasodilation it can reduce blood pressure. Mg also can reduce heart rate. Hence as a precaution I mentioned if someone has bradycardia or hypotension , adding Mg could lower either or both and result could be dizziness or fainting. Hence I mention it as a precaution. How real it is is not known but warning is important .
Best
Hugging

Thank you for the speedy reply. I have Bradycardia although not really low, a few lower dips at night while sleeping but nothing like when they tried Metorprolol on me which I no longer take.

I'm taking a few supplements with hopes of calming PAC's and lessening PAF episodes. EP wants to do an PFA but I'm not sure I'm ready for that big step yet.

Thanks again~!