DiverJohnATL
Registered
As an ER doc, I'd be happier if my patients stayed on Coumadin. We can measure the degree of anticoagulation easily, and we can reverse it. The newer medications are far more difficult to assess, in terms of the degree of anticoagulation any given patient is experiencing, and reversing their effect is more difficult. Yeah, monitoring Coumadin is a pain, and dosage has to be individualized, and every other medication in the universe changes it -- but at least we can KNOW how bad the situation is that we are dealing with, and we have effective and readily available methods for reversing the action of the drug.
I'm learning to hate the new ones.
As a pulmonary-critical care NP I see a great number of pulmonary embolisms and dvts in the ICUs where I mainly practice. While the new drugs such as Xarelto and Pradaxa have no reversal agents we as a practice (18 MD/26 NP-PA's) routinely use Xarelto (the only other oral anti coag approved) for our patients for not only DVT/PTE but any patient requiring long term oral anti coagulation. We made the switch about a year ago as a practice following a large study and discussion at our journal club that came out either in NEJM or CHEST can't remember which which looked at risk of death vs serious bleeding between Coumadin and Xarelto. While Coumadin has "reversal agents" we as practitioners know it takes time and it's not instant. The study showed that risk of serious bleed requiring hospitalization was greater with xarelto than Coumadin, however......the risk of death from bleeding was greater with Coumadin than xarelto. Usually when we tell our patients the evidence they choose the Xarelto. No monitoring tests. No dietary restrictions. No reversal agent except time, which as I recall the study showed 18h to be an effective amount for reversal.
I can try to find the article if you desire it's probably still in my email as a link
John