I think decreased time under sedation, less exposure to radiation are key benefits. If safety and efficacy are equivalent then the only concerns would be unexpected longer term negatives which are unknown unknowns. Cost is a fair point but what proportion of the total cost is just equipment?
How are the nodes or pathways that have to be cauterized to stop the erratic electrical impulses from the heart from going all over the place identified?
...allow me gentlemen... ...having caveman starting fire in your heart vs. electromagnetic field doing cell poration...and you trying to elaborate your financial concerns...woaaa...bravo...
This Video is 7 months old and PFA adoption shows no signs of slowing down. It in fact continues to speed up.
I would like to see exactly why these new machines are so much more expensive.
Trying to save their business
I think decreased time under sedation, less exposure to radiation are key benefits. If safety and efficacy are equivalent then the only concerns would be unexpected longer term negatives which are unknown unknowns. Cost is a fair point but what proportion of the total cost is just equipment?
Would love to hear the opinions on type of anesthesia and the "elderly" for pulse field ablation. Thanks.
Why don't they have a balanced analysis rather totally negative towards Pulsed Field Ablation.
How are the nodes or pathways that have to be cauterized to stop the erratic electrical impulses from the heart from going all over the place identified?
...allow me gentlemen...
...having caveman starting fire in your heart vs. electromagnetic field doing cell poration...and you trying to elaborate your financial concerns...woaaa...bravo...
Good talking points! Thanks guy!
this seems like some forced contrarian crap