Pulmonary Embolism Support Group
By far the most common form of pulmonary embolism is a thromboembolism, which occurs when a blood clot, generally a venous thrombus, becomes dislodged from its site of formation and embolizes to the arterial blood supply of one of the lungs. Symptoms may include difficulty breathing, pain during breathing, and more rarely circulatory instability and death.
No one said any of the anticoagulants discussed were unsafe. No one here is telling anyone they should only take warfarin.
Switching to warfarin would be a decision you'd need to make with your doctor.
The other thread was about flaws in the regulatory system not about the med itself. So sit down with a cup of tea and b-r-e-a-t-h-e. (grin)
Every med has its risks ... even Tylenol and over-the-counter supplements can have issues. The goal is to make informed decisions and to do what's best for you. I can't see that switching meds in a panic is a good decision when what you're taking seems to be doing the trick.
Take a deep breath, consider limiting what you're reading on the internet when you're stressed and anxious (I highly recommend cat videos as an alternative), and keep in mind that the Xarelto you're taking is keeping you safe from more clots.
Right now, that medicine is your friend and it is giving your body a chance to dissolve the clots and to heal. The odds of getting an uncontrollable bleed are really, really small (but I wouldn't start juggling chainsaws anytime soon), but the odds of the medicine helping you heal are really, really, really high.
You'll be OK. Hang in there!
A couple of things to remember with regard to that other conversation:
Well, first is basically a repeat of what rmb initially said - Those of us who were discussing that are all people who have to stay on anticoagulants permanently, so as she said, that puts us in a different category than new patients who only have to stay on it for a few months. The risk of a major bleed when you're only taking it for 3-6-12 months is really insignificant when compared to the risk of taking a medication for 30 years or more, and anticoagulation therapy is pretty much just an assessment of what's the bigger risk and adjust for that, because no matter what we choose, we're at some risk.
Second, my understanding is that the new anticoagulants un-monitored are similar in risk to what well-regulated warfarin is. Which means that for a normal, reasonably healthy person (not an elderly patient with multiple health issues to juggle), there's really not an appreciable difference for you taking one versus the other. Your risk of a major bleed on either medication during your period of temporary treatment is pretty low. And you do get the benefit of not having to test. I don't think that study is indicating at all that a person on Xarelto or Pradaxa is at any greater risk than they would be on warfarin.
I actually am still excited about the possibilities for these new anticoagulants and I would really love it if one of them would seem the right choice for me at some point in my life. If I were taking them for just a few months, I probably would prefer it myself. So if I were in your situation, I'd probably be doing just as you are doing now.
Please don't go back and get anxious over a decision which you and your doctor made, due to our discussion, which really was more about the way medications are pushed through with an agenda rather than transparently presenting the information. To me, the issue is that there is a way for all of us on anticoagulation to be much safer than we currently are on whatever form of anticoagulation we use, yet perhaps that's not being thoroughly explored because of the desire to have a one-size-fits-all treatment.
Warfarin can be a really persnickety medication, and it takes time and effort to get into the right dose. I had problems keeping my blood at the level it needed to be for a year after I started it, and we had to constantly adjust my dose. Since using warfarin can be so hard to get into the correct "safe" range, just thinking logically, I would suspect that for short term use, the new anticoagulants are probably safer to use than warfarin for most people. And it would be a whole lot less stressful!
I think I should stick to cat videos on the internet.
Regarding diet and warfarin: I'm on warfarin and eat greens. There's no reason to stop eating healthy foods simply because of warfarin. Just sayin' so any new folks on warfarin reading this don't think they have to completely re-haul their diets.
My INR has remained stable for the entire 3 or 4 years (hey, who's counting?) I've been on Coumadin with the rare exception of a point or 2 above or below range, quickly corrected by an adjustment of my diet or very occasionally a small correction in dose for one day.
There ARE people, I know, who might have some genetic predisposition or other condition that makes staying in range much harder. I'm talking about most of the people.
I've seen weight-loss diets that are a lot more convoluted and restrictive than the one I follow to keep my INR in range. LOL
Point is, it's really a myth that you can't eat healthy foods on warfarin. Yes, vitamin K is one of many things which can have an effect on INR, but there's no reason not to have it in your diet as long as you are reasonably consistent about your intake of it. But every person has to do what works out best for them individually. Just like the decision of which anticoagulant to take, what works best for one person may not be for another, so we have to weigh the pros and cons of each choice and decide which is best for us.
But you have to do what you and your Doc agree is best for you.