Warfarin and rivaroxaban have their own advantages and disadvantages. Because warfarin has been used for a longer period of time, the evidence of clinical use and clinical experience are more adequate. Therefore, the clinical indications for warfarin are clearer, and the efficacy is clearer. Rivaroxaban includes apixaban and the newest type of dabigatran, which are new oral anticoagulants and have only appeared in the last decade or so. Because warfarin is susceptible to the effects of food and drugs and has a narrow therapeutic window, it has certain disadvantages in clinical use. The use of warfarin requires regular blood sampling to monitor the coagulation function and observe whether the INR index meets the standard, and also needs to consider whether the dose needs to be adjusted and whether other drugs have affected the effect of warfarin, etc., while rivaroxaban does not require routine monitoring of coagulation function. Secondly, rivaroxaban has a faster onset of action and may work on the same day, while warfarin has a slower onset of action and may take 4-5 days to achieve optimal efficacy. Although the half-life of rivaroxaban is shorter and there is no need to routinely monitor INR indicators, it is much more expensive than warfarin because it is a new type of oral anticoagulant. In addition, although the therapeutic window of warfarin is narrower and prone to underdose or overdose, there are specific antagonists for warfarin overdose. Clinical use of warfarin overdose can be followed by a shot of vitamin K. The effect of warfarin can be immediately reduced, but there is no specific antagonist for rivaroxaban. In many clinical situations they can be used interchangeably, but in some cases, such as after prosthetic valve replacement, warfarin is required for anticoagulation, and for atrial fibrillation warfarin is also recommended for antithrombotic treatment.