HRS 2024: A Critical Appraisal of Pulsed Field Ablation

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 30 янв 2025

Комментарии •

  • @lrc87290
    @lrc87290 19 дней назад +1

    This Video is 7 months old and PFA adoption shows no signs of slowing down. It in fact continues to speed up.

  • @garrettmineo
    @garrettmineo Месяц назад

    I would like to see exactly why these new machines are so much more expensive.

  • @doug7808
    @doug7808 6 месяцев назад +9

    Trying to save their business

  • @Inspectergadget69
    @Inspectergadget69 5 месяцев назад +2

    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?

  • @dahliadoc3
    @dahliadoc3 6 месяцев назад

    Would love to hear the opinions on type of anesthesia and the "elderly" for pulse field ablation. Thanks.

  • @francisexperience
    @francisexperience 8 дней назад +1

    Why don't they have a balanced analysis rather totally negative towards Pulsed Field Ablation.

  • @s.j.5850
    @s.j.5850 6 месяцев назад

    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?

  • @btradingwarehouse3861
    @btradingwarehouse3861 4 месяца назад +2

    ...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...

  • @HAM-Radio-Gun-Guy
    @HAM-Radio-Gun-Guy 7 месяцев назад +1

    Good talking points! Thanks guy!

  • @spojce9
    @spojce9 2 месяца назад +1

    this seems like some forced contrarian crap