Rivaroxaban: is it Really Need to Monitor its Anticoagulant Effect in Clinical Practice?

Gustavo Vignoli Dos Santos,Luiz Eduardo Montenegro Camanho

doi:10.36660/ijcs.20200373

Gustavo Vignoli Dos Santos, Luiz Eduardo Montenegro Camanho

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.36660/ijcs.20200373

Copy DOI

Abstract

Oral anticoagulation (OAC) has been the cornerstone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The vitamin K antagonist warfarin has been considered the drug of choice in stroke prevention with proven efficacy for more than 60 years. The great inter-patient and intra-patient dose variability and need for routine International Normalized Ratio (INR), are among the main disadvantages of warfarin. The direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran) and factors Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban), are currently [...]

Highlights

Hospital Pró-Cardíaco, Rio de Janeiro, RJ – Brazil
The vitamin K antagonist warfarin has been considered the drug of choice in stroke prevention with proven efficacy for more than 60 years
Unlike warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are administered in fixed doses and do not require routine laboratory monitoring.[2]

Summary

Introduction

Hospital Pró-Cardíaco, Rio de Janeiro, RJ – Brazil. Editorial referring to the article: Atrial Fibrillation and use of rivaroxaban: performance of the prothrombin time/ INR as a function of time after blood collection. The great inter-patient and intrapatient dose variability and need for routine International Normalized Ratio (INR), are among the main disadvantages of warfarin.[1] The direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran) and factors Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban), are currently the therapy of choice for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Results

Conclusion