I was on warfarin for years and waited to make the switch to xarelto after it was on the market for a couple years. I’ve been in it for a couple of years now and I’m really happy with it. The cost will depend on our insurance plan design, I pay $30 for a 30 day supply but no INR labs so I think the cost for me evens out.

There is no reversal agent but I think they’ll have something soon. I truly don’t worry about it. I mean honestly if I were in a serious car wreck with massively bleeding, not sure a reversal agent would do much at that point.

Thanks, rmb. The not having to do INR labs is a big incentive. To be honest, the cost difference isn't really the motivating factor for me. While I know that the risk of a major bleed is low, it's still there for me. I suppose that my question can also be restated as "if I did need to reverse the effects of something major, how good is the warfarin reversal agent and how likely am I to get it?" If it's low enough, then I suppose there's not much difference to not having any with Xarelto at all.

I suppose that I'm just not yet convinced that the downsides of Xarelto don't outweigh the downsides of warfarin. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts as they're really helpful!

I have also had three dvt's in the past 17 years. I went 10 years before I had DVT #2 but then I had a 3rd unprovoked DVT only two years after that. I am also on Warfarin for life. My doctor suggested I might want to try one of the new anticoagulants but after doing much research I came to the conclusion that I would stick with Warfarin because none of the new anticoags have a resersal agent. Also, I read an article in the JAMA (journal American Medical Association) and one of the top people there advised against using anything other than Warfarin/Coumadin.
So for now I will stick with Warfarin as it's been on the market for 50 years now.
Two months ago I decided to "home test" instead of going to the lab. It's working out really well for me as I have to test twice a month in order to be able to use the testing machine and lately my INR has become a bit erratic so testing more often is beneficial for me at this time.

It helped me to have a doctor who seemed measured and thoughtful about prescribing it. When xarelto first came out and I asked for his opinion, he said he wasn't going to start prescribing until it was on the market for a while, just to see any additional outcomes. That was in line with my thinking. Then at some point he started prescribing it to his patients and he told me how well they were doing on it. He said he would really like to see me on it because he thinks it makes the most sense for me and my lifestyle. He was right. It's just so cool to not have to do an INR test regularly. I mean, you manage it because you have to and it's not that bad, but once you get to stop it's really just so nice. Also, one of the advantages is that it leaves your system fairly quickly. So if you need a procedure, it's hassle free; you basically stop it a day or so before and that's it. No five days prior, no bridging with lovenox. I have colonoscopies annually because of having ulcerative colitis and it's nice to not have to deal with that.

Anyway, I totally get weighing the pros and cons. That's what we should be doing. Hope more people chime in with their experiences as well.

I understand your concern, I was in the hospital 2 weeks ago for my 2nd PE, 2 blood clots, but no DVT. The first time was 14 years ago and I was on coumadin for the DVT & PE for about 1 year and just could not keep my range correct for INR tests. So after long research and speaking with others that ended use of coumadin, even though my doctor told me I would need to stay on it for life. Now I am taking Eliquis and have the same concerns. I researched and see there are many blood thinners, some are Xarelto, Eliquis, Pradaxa, and Savagsa. They are all very expensive.