Hello iam_mi
If I were you, I would try it - because if it works, it's all better than ISC. Whether it works for you or not can only be said after a test phase. I think the doctors probably explained that.
Basically, there are two different methods, both of which have advantages and disadvantages: There is a variant in which the permanent electrodes are installed during the first operation. This has the advantage that, if successful, only the pacemaker has to be implanted, the electrodes can hardly slip and the result remains the same after the second operation, because the electrodes doesn’t need to be changed. The disadvantage is that it is much more difficult to get the electrodes removed again and therefore often leave them in if they fail.
In the second variant, temporary electrodes are implanted, which are replaced by permanent electrodes during the second operation. The advantage is that it is relatively easy to undo the matter in case of failure. The disadvantage is that two more elaborate surgeries are necessary and, the result with the permanent electrode may be different.
I know some people for whom it worked with the pacemakers and for whom the problem has been significantly reduced. However, it is probably also the case that you have to be patient. In the test phase, often only a slight improvement is achieved. If this is the case, however, the chances are relatively good that there will be a further improvement in the long term.
Whether ISC can actually be completely dispensed with in the end, however, probably no one will guarantee you.
Best regards
Michael
