I'm intrigued, how do you convince the significant other to dress up, do the finger prick thing, and not notice that the coagucheck isn't reading the doac response? Lucky man....
They have the same stroke risk, just a lower brain bleed risk ( and higher gi bleed risk ) .
Yes, and I personally am at greater risk for a GI bleed, as I have had one already-- and that was part of my decision making process for sure, thanks, important point. (Though I think Warfarin can be reversed in under 15 minutes-- it depends how you are administering the Vitamin K.)
I did not mean to imply that my choice is the right one for everyone, but the relative risks of anticoagulants are also really hard to assess. RCT's are also fiendishly difficult to understand and interpret, and lots of people a lot smarter than me wonder if they really should be "the gold standard" for evaluating the relative efficacy of pharmacological agents. RCTs are fantastic if you are measuring a really clear outcome in a well-defined patient population-- like viral load in HIV patients.
But when there are many, many different potential adverse outcomes that may vary greatly in different populations, I think it's important to look at RCTs with a more critical eye-- that doesn't mean ignoring them, it means
also considering studies with smaller, clearly-defined samples, and also just asking medical professionals what they see in their practice.
No disrespect to anyone who uses non-Vitamin K anticoagulants, I know they are a great choice for lots of people, and many factors influence the choice. Part of the reason Warfarin works for me is that I'm only a 7 minute drive from my health care provider. One Canadian biker in my online DVT support group who lived in a remote area was able to ride again for the first time when the non-Ks came on the scene-- more power to him, I have nothing against them. Yes, I am a little suspicious of the same dose of anticoagulant for all patients irrespective of body weight, but that's only one of many factors I would consider, and it's a speculative one, so I wouldn't-- and didn't-- base my decision solely on that.
Here's a smaller study that suggests the issue is not so cut-and-dried for AFIB patients:
In this Danish cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation and a single stroke risk factor, there was no difference between NOACs compared with treatment with warfarin in terms of the risk of having an ischemic stroke/systemic embolism. For "any bleeding," this was lower for treatment with...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Here's another one that looks at an older population. Again, it depends what the endpoint is-- combining critical and noncritical bleeding events for this population, Warfarin actually edges out Xaltero, but looking at other endpoints, Xaltero is slightly safer.
A summary of clinical data regarding XARELTO® (rivaroxaban) use in elderly patients.
www.janssenmd.com