There are a number of expressions of concern in today’s posts about the efficacy and/or desirability of anti-coagulation in respect of AF, and it seems I am not the only one who wonders whether they are doing the right thing by signing up to medication for life.
It seems that the NHS has a one-system-fits-all approach that – being based on CHADS – has little flexibility. I appreciate Slattery for introducing the ATRIA system of scoring into the discussion, and to goldie11 for supplying the link. On the face of it, this would seem to be a more flexible and individual system than CHADS and I wonder that no cardiologist of GP I have seen has ever mentioned it.
Doodle68 cites an interesting list of statements from the Stroke Association in support of medication – the first of which is: “The risk of stroke increases five-fold for people with AF.” Is there, I wonder, an authoritative figure for the reduction of stroke risk that anti-coagulation can bring?
Another post – from Jans5 - says: “It should be remembered that anti-coagulation increases the risk of strokes due to bleeding in the brain which according to the stroke association are the worst kind of stroke and these types of strokes are in the increase in the UK.”
As goldie11 says: “The final choice is yours” though – as for many others – the choice did not seem like much of one when I made it. Even at a low CHADS score the clear message is that if you don’t take the tablets you’re very likely to have a stroke. And that would seem to be it… ?