All anticoagulants make you bleed... that is their purpose. I take Pradaxa. It is more effective at preventing strokes than Coumadin. Coumadin causes more brain bleeds and Pradaxa causes more stomach bleeds. Realize that every person has their own vulnerabilities and other medical conditions that make people more likely to have problems. Not having a stroke and not having brain bleeds is a priority of mine that takes precedence over the chance of having stomach irritation or a stomach bleed (don't want one of those btw). In a trial, Pradaxa was 35% more effective than Coumadin at preventing strokes. Coumadin reuces stroke risk by 70%. That would be about a 94% stroke risk reduction. I realize there are many complex factors that go into these numbers, like CHADS scores, but Pradaxa really works and requires no testing. In addition, in places like New Zealand and Australia, it was being improperly prescribed to people at high risk for bleeds and for other purposes than afib.

Lawyers are out to make money. Coumadin lawsuit lawyers exist also. Read this website: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/drugs-medical/coumadin-blackbox-00368.html

Wow, Petey,
You always supply a wealth of info. Thanks!! That makes me feel a little better.

I am on Pradaxa also and would hate to switch to Coumadin due to all the bloodwork involved. I get Gi upset from Pradaxa (GERD and nausea) but would rather put up with that than the bloodwork.

Thanks, I didn't know coumadin has a black box warning.

Over 250 people have died so far from Pradaxa related bleeding and there is no way to test if it is interacting properly with your individual body chemistry. Also there is no antidote, so if you need emergency surgery or are in a bad accident the only way to stop the bleeding is with blood transfusions.
I recently had the decision to stay on Coumadin or switch to Pradaxa and after a bit of research my choice wasn't that hard. There was a 20% drop out rate from Pradaxa's RE-LY trial because they couldn't handle the drug associated GI bleeding and problems. Coumadin has been a mainstay because it works and with the recent ability to test your INR at home weekly this option seems to be the best one in my opinion. The studies comparing the two drugs were only done with testing INR readings monthly at a lab not weekly at home which according to recent studies decreases the risk of forming a clot by 50% !
Here are some of the companies that will bill your insurance for you to have a meter and test weekly from home. This is the safest way to deal with anticoagulants and you know how it is reacting with your body. Good luck to everyone on any sort of Anti-Coagulant and God Bless!

htt://www.aleree.com/
http://www.advancedcardioservices.com/
http://www.rochedig.com/

From my other post today regarding the new agents like Pradaxa:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/clinical-context/Strokes/30448


Dr Mahaffey says the new agents work better than Coumadin, are safer as far as bleeds are concerned, still prevent strokes when coming on and off them for operations, and are easier to use. He also says that vitamin K doesn't really reverse Coumadin in a timely manner. BTW, Dr Mahaffey consulted for all the drug companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, he maker of Coumadin. This is worth taking seriously.



MAHAFFEY: Well, there's been a lot of talk about that, and there is no real antidote for either dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban, but nor is there really a true antidote for warfarin. We give vitamin K and we give fresh frozen plasma, but, remember, vitamin K takes a while to work so it's not a true instantaneously reversing agent, and it is a concern for people.
And what I remind people is that these trials were done without an antidote, and we saw very good reductions in stroke and non-CNS embolism, but, importantly, reductions in intracranial hemorrhage, bleeding in the brain, and without a huge signal of excess bleeding at all, which is what you would worry about.
And the reason you worry about it, Chris, is that the patients who have atrial fibrillation are patients who are elderly. They often have multiple comorbidities. They therefore often have to undergo procedures like colonoscopies with colon biopsies, endoscopies where they may have to have biopsies of ulcers. They may have to have biopsies for cancers. And so in the clinical trials, these patients were coming on and off their drugs as they needed to have those procedures. And even as they came on and off those drugs, we still get the results that we see.
The novel agents seem to do better.

Kenneth W. Mahaffey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a consultant for: AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Ortho/McNeil, Pfizer, Polymedix, sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough; received grants for clinical research from: AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Portola, Pozen, Regado Biotechnologies, sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough, and The Medicines Company.

Thanks for all of your input!!

This question appears to be controversial.