I have PAF and flutter. My episodes have been pretty intermittent: about two a year, Only one over the last year, until this last episode, which involved flutter, while I had pneumonia. I just turned 60.

I read an article that Petey posted recently comparing meds to ablation. for people with intermittent PAF, who are young (not me--but I'ver exercised regularly for the past 25 years)and with no underlying heart conditions, it seems that an ablation most often gives better long term results than meds.

I had an appt. with a cardiologist. He pointed out that I definitely have afib; and that afib tends to get worse over time. As per Petey's article, it seems that ablations have a higher success rate when afib is still intermittent. finally, for me the likelihood of having an ablation later on seemed high. So I opted to schedule the procedure.

the last time I had this option I declined.

After almost a year with no episodes I thought that I had 'solved' my problem; we all know that this isn't likely.

Kaiser has a center that does all of the ablation procedures for all of their hospitals. Again, as per Petey's article, the skill of the practitioner is important. This article suggested that centers that perform lots of ablations tend to do better: the dr.'s are experienced.

I spoke with and EP that will be performing the procedure over the phone for a half and hour, and he described the pros and cons of the procedure.

The EP and my new cardiologist both felt that an ablation makes sense for me. I've concurred.

so does my reasoning make sense? I have two and half months before the procedure. any compelling counter arguments?

My only confusion, which I'll email my cardiologist about, is whether an ablation helps flutter, or just afib.

thanks for your input.

p.s. after ranting about Kaiser in other posts, once I got to see a cardiologist all of this unfolded over two days!