NOAC versus warfarin - the new is better?
Posted , 5 users are following.
The following study suggests warfarin may be better for AF than the newer NOAC alternatives if simple genetic testing and INR home monitoring is available:
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/1/e000712.full.pdf
1 like, 3 replies
shirley67620 Joydeck
Posted
I always said I did not want to go onto warfarin, but after high blood pressure (medicated) and Afib (medicated), I first tried dabigatran. It was not suitable for me due to getting bad gastric reaction, so have been on warfarin ever since. Monitored at surgery. My INR readings are stable so I ony need to be checked every 4/5 weeks One positive is that with warfarin there is an 'antidote' if the thin blood needs to be made thicker (as in the case of internal bleed )but from what I understand with dabigatran it has to work itself naturally out of the body.
phil17356 Joydeck
Posted
I’ve been on warfarin since 2005 when I had my aortic heart valve replaced with a prosthetic one. I’ve had no problems apart from remembering to take the tablets! I was subsequently diagnosed with AF and therefore need blood thinning agents but as I was already on warfarin there was little change to my medication.
To make life easier as I work away from home a lot during the week I obtained a home INR test kit from Roche and therefore don’t need to go into the surgery to have my INR tested. I don’t seem to suffer from excessive bruising and it’s easy to keep my INR in mid-therapeutic range, in my case 3.0 so no real issues.
As Shirley said thickening the blood if needs be is no hassle. Warfarin takes 2 to 3 days to take effect so you can just wait for your INR to drift down to 1.0 or you can take a dose of vitamin K (vile stuff, tastes like concentrated rotten cabbage!), which I had to do once and watch your INR plummet in a matter of hours.
Hope that helps.
Phil
Cyrtis Joydeck
Posted
Warfarin and NOACS/DOACS don't thin the blood, they just slow down the clotting process.