There is another aspirin thread going just now but my question would really constitute a hijack so...a separate thread it will be. Apologies if this has been covered in the past.
At the time of my release from the hospital post-surgery(AVR with Carbomedics mechanical valve), I was prescribed only warfarin for protection from clotting. INR was meant to be in the range 2.0-3.0. At my first post-surgical cardiology appointment I was seen by a young doctor from Israel who was doing his fellowship with my cardio. He put me on 81 mg Aspirin as well, stating that the most recent studies suggested it afforded significantly more protection with statistically insignificant risk of bleeding events.
At my most recent visit to the actual, usual cardiologist he stopped the Aspirin, saying that he didn't think it was worth the extra risk. I dutifully stopped taking it and didn't think about it again until last night when I was reading everything the AHA has to say about anti-coagulation. According to them, the doc on the fellowship was right. Furthermore, they quoted a Dutch study of over 15,000 patients indicating that the risk of thrombotic events increased dramatically with an INR of less than 2.5.
I'm not going to ask for any advice, and I do plan to take it up with my doctor via email but I wonder what other people have been prescribed for the same condition, which is a modern, pyrolytic carbon valve in the aortic position with no atrial fibrillation and otherwise good health, including a very active lifestyle. I suspect that my doc may be operating from old information.
Another very interesting thing on the same very dense page was a bit about warfarin interfering with clotting and with coagulation by two quite separate actions. This is interesting because it holds out the hope that one day the two may be separated and we may be offered a drug which is able to interfere with clotting while leaving coagulation unhindered.
If anyone hasn't seen the page and would like to, here it is:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/107/12/1692
It does date back to 2003 but it hasn't been updated since, and it is my understanding that the AHA is considered the leading authority on this stuff. The guide is also associated with the American College of Cardiology.
Paul
At the time of my release from the hospital post-surgery(AVR with Carbomedics mechanical valve), I was prescribed only warfarin for protection from clotting. INR was meant to be in the range 2.0-3.0. At my first post-surgical cardiology appointment I was seen by a young doctor from Israel who was doing his fellowship with my cardio. He put me on 81 mg Aspirin as well, stating that the most recent studies suggested it afforded significantly more protection with statistically insignificant risk of bleeding events.
At my most recent visit to the actual, usual cardiologist he stopped the Aspirin, saying that he didn't think it was worth the extra risk. I dutifully stopped taking it and didn't think about it again until last night when I was reading everything the AHA has to say about anti-coagulation. According to them, the doc on the fellowship was right. Furthermore, they quoted a Dutch study of over 15,000 patients indicating that the risk of thrombotic events increased dramatically with an INR of less than 2.5.
I'm not going to ask for any advice, and I do plan to take it up with my doctor via email but I wonder what other people have been prescribed for the same condition, which is a modern, pyrolytic carbon valve in the aortic position with no atrial fibrillation and otherwise good health, including a very active lifestyle. I suspect that my doc may be operating from old information.
Another very interesting thing on the same very dense page was a bit about warfarin interfering with clotting and with coagulation by two quite separate actions. This is interesting because it holds out the hope that one day the two may be separated and we may be offered a drug which is able to interfere with clotting while leaving coagulation unhindered.
If anyone hasn't seen the page and would like to, here it is:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/107/12/1692
It does date back to 2003 but it hasn't been updated since, and it is my understanding that the AHA is considered the leading authority on this stuff. The guide is also associated with the American College of Cardiology.
Paul