Good, so you have a potential time limit on the recommended anticoagulant therapy. Now, there are inherent risks to riding the motorcycle. There are also inherent risks to taking the medication. You seem to have a good understanding of both of these risk profiles. What about the inherent risks of not taking the medication? How to prioritize or rank the risks is pretty subjective and difficult to easily rank in an objective comparison.
Take the medication and risk a potential uncontrolled bleed in the event of any type of injury.
Don't take the medication and accept an assumed risk of another thromboembolic event.
Where is the greater risk? Are you at more risk of sustaining a head injury while riding that is severe enough to rupture tissue integrity causing you to bleed or is the risk greater that you will have a second cardiac event which may occur because of prior decades of accumulated disease processes? Past trends show that people who have one MI are at tremendous risk of having another when compared to the non-MI population. Has you risk of a motorcycle accident increased recently?
I see myself choosing to do the preventive therapy for the cardiac event and accepting the risk of a potential uncontrolled bleed in the event of an accident. You need to find the answer from within yourself, and it's great that you are maintaining open dialogue about your concerns. Maybe the risk of getting into an accident and sustaining a head injury is less than the risk of having another heart attack if one doesn't start therapy as directed. I wish I knew the answer. Foresight presents two motorcycle-ridden options: Have a heart attack while riding because of the increased risks of not starting therapy, or potentially die or be permanently disabled from a trauma related bleed. What do you think will likely be your demise?
