It's Badminton time!
All I ask is that people study up on the real facts behind anticoagulation before committing one way or the other, that's all.
Ever single new person that comes in here has the same old song, "I wanted to avoid anticoagulation because of, "insert issue here." Their reasoning is unfounded for the most part, simply because they've never really looked into it or talked with those of us on it. They've "heard" things from people and even some in the medical profession and it scares them. They automatically shut the brain off and forget to look into it because of that.
Nobody here has bled to death from a hangnail of any other cause that I'm aware of anticoagulation wise, we all eat a normal diet, we all drink what we want, some people drink in excess, but hey, they are doing what they want to do and anticoagulation has not stopped them. There is little difference in clotting time between 10 seconds and 30 seconds. You don't bleed faster, you just clot slower. If you've done something serious enough to warrant a trip to the ER, then chances are, you'd of needed to go there even if you weren't anticoagulated.
The biggest point I'm trying to make is that if you should develop Chronic Afib as a result of surgery, your going to be on anticoagulants regardless of your choice in valves. If your young, that is something to ponder.
If your an older individual or even at the dividing line, I'll be the first to say go tissue if you have a choice. Older folks bleed easier to start with, so being on Coumadin can be a problem for you late it life. I mean late late too 80's and 90's.
