Millions of patients on blood thinners are denied life-saving surgeries every day. Not because surgery is impossible — but because their medicine makes bleeding unstoppable.
Ramesh Mehta spent forty years building a textile business in Surat. He is the kind of man who arrives early, laughs loudly, and insists on paying the bill. He danced at his granddaughter's naming ceremony last winter — still strong, still proud, still the patriarch holding the family together.
Three years ago, Ramesh had a mild heart attack. He survived. His cardiologist started him on a blood thinner — one of the standard anticoagulant medicines that millions of heart patients take every single day to prevent dangerous clots from forming in their arteries and triggering another, possibly fatal, heart attack or stroke. Ramesh took his pills faithfully every morning. He understood the deal: the medicine was keeping him alive.
Then, last year, his doctors found something else. A routine scan revealed a large, suspicious mass in his colon — almost certainly cancer, caught early enough that a surgical resection could cure him completely. His oncologist was cautiously optimistic. "We need to operate soon," she said. "The window is good right now."
Then the surgical team looked at Ramesh's medication list. And the room went quiet.
— A Composite Portrait of Millions of Patients —
"Abdominal cancer surgery is not a small procedure," the surgeon explained gently. "We open the abdomen. We handle major blood vessels. We work near the bowel, the liver, the mesenteric arteries. This surgery can involve significant blood loss even in a healthy patient. With the anticoagulant you are on, any vessel we nick, any tissue that bleeds — we may not be able to control it fast enough."
Ramesh leaned forward. "So stop the medicine before surgery," he said. He was a practical man. He thought it was simple.
The surgeon shook his head. "That is the problem. If we stop the anticoagulant even for a few days, your heart is unprotected. With your history, the risk of a clot forming — causing a stroke or another heart attack on the operating table — becomes very real. We are caught between two catastrophes."
Ramesh sat back. The silence in the room felt heavier than anything he had carried in forty years of business. In one hand, the medicine keeping his heart from killing him. In the other, a cancer that would certainly kill him — if no one dared operate.
They sent him home to wait. To "optimise." To hope that some bridge protocol, some careful timing, might open a narrow window. The cancer, of course, does not wait for anyone to be optimised.
Ramesh is still waiting. His granddaughter is four now. She does not know what cancer is yet.
This is not a rare tragedy. It is a daily reality for tens of millions of people around the world. Patients on anticoagulants are routinely denied or indefinitely delayed for the surgeries that could save their lives — not because of their age, not because of their fitness, but because of a fundamental, unsolved flaw in every blood thinner medicine ever made.
"To prevent a clot today means accepting a haemorrhage tomorrow. Every anticoagulant ever approved has been defined entirely by this compromise."
It is one of medicine's most heartbreaking paradoxes: the drug saving your life from one threat may be the precise reason no surgeon can save you from another.
People sometimes assume that modern minimally-invasive techniques have made surgical bleeding a problem of the past. Keyhole cameras, robotic arms, tiny incisions — surely the danger is smaller now? For some procedures, yes. A laparoscopic gallbladder removal or an arthroscopic knee scope involves very little cutting and modest blood loss. The bleeding risk there, even on anticoagulants, is manageable.
But there is an enormous category of surgeries — the ones that save lives from the most serious conditions — where bleeding risk is not manageable. Where a surgeon opening the body must handle large vessels, work inside confined and vascular spaces, and depend absolutely on the patient's blood being able to clot. These are the surgeries that anticoagulated patients are denied. These are Ramesh's surgeries.
These are not elective procedures. They are the operations that stand between a patient and death — routinely delayed or refused in patients on anticoagulants.
Removing tumours from the colon, stomach, liver, or pancreas requires handling major mesenteric blood vessels and extensive tissue dissection. Blood loss of 500–2,000 ml is common even in healthy patients. On anticoagulants, intraoperative haemorrhage can become uncontrollable within minutes.
Patients who need valve replacement or bypass surgery are often already on anticoagulants for the very heart condition that caused the valve disease. The cruelest irony: the medicine protecting their heart makes it dangerous to operate on their heart. Cardiopulmonary bypass itself already stresses clotting; additional anticoagulation can be catastrophic.
Inside the skull and spinal canal, there is no room for bleeding. A volume of blood that would be trivial in the abdomen can compress the brain or spinal cord within seconds, causing permanent paralysis or death. Neurosurgeons operate in millimetres. An anticoagulated patient is an unacceptable risk. Brain tumour surgery is routinely delayed — sometimes until the tumour is inoperable.
When an aortic aneurysm ruptures or a trauma patient arrives bleeding internally, the surgical team has minutes. In an anticoagulated patient, those minutes shrink further. Reversal agents exist but take precious time to work. For elderly patients on anticoagulants who fall and bleed internally, mortality rates are dramatically higher than for those not on the drugs.
Unlike keyhole knee arthroscopy, hip surgery involves cutting deeply through muscle and tissue planes with proximity to major vessels. A hip fracture in an elderly anticoagulated patient is a true emergency — delay causes death from immobility and pneumonia, but surgery risks haemorrhage. Every hour of delay worsens survival odds. There is no good window.
Peripheral arterial disease — blocked leg arteries — affects millions of the same elderly patients on anticoagulants for heart disease. Bypass surgery to restore blood flow to the limb and prevent amputation requires clamping and reconstructing major arteries. On a blood thinner, anastomotic bleeding — bleeding at the vessel joins — can be impossible to control.
Every blood thinner ever approved — from warfarin in the 1950s to modern drugs like apixaban and rivaroxaban — works by suppressing the body's entire clotting system. Think of it like shutting off all power in a building to stop one faulty wire. The medicine cannot distinguish between the dangerous pathological clot forming in a diseased artery and the life-saving clot your body desperately needs to seal a surgical wound.
This is not a dosing problem. It is not a monitoring problem. It is a biological design problem — and for decades, no one has solved it.
Warfarin requires constant blood testing and reacts to everything from leafy vegetables to stress. The newer DOACs — the drugs Ramesh takes — are more convenient, but they still carry a 2–4% annual risk of major bleeding. Every year. Every patient. And when catastrophic surgical bleeding begins in an anticoagulated patient, reversal agents — where they exist at all — take time that the operating table cannot always afford.
Surgeons, cardiologists, and patients have lived within this impossible constraint for generations. The unspoken consensus: this is just the nature of the trade-off. There is no better answer.
Until now.
Deep in the biology of blood clotting, there is a distinction that scientists have understood for years but never successfully exploited therapeutically. The human body forms clots in two fundamentally different ways — and only one of them causes the pathological blockages that kill.
When a plaque ruptures in a diseased artery, platelets rush to the damage site and stick together — forming the dangerous plug that blocks blood flow, causing heart attacks and strokes. This is the enemy.
When you bleed from a wound — or a surgical incision — your body builds a separate, fibrin-based clot to seal the injury and keep you alive. Destroy this mechanism, and even a small cut becomes life-threatening.
Every existing blood thinner attacks both. That is why Ramesh cannot have surgery. That is why millions of patients are trapped.
The CelerisAI cardiovascular programme is engineering molecules that attack only the first pathway — the pathological platelet adhesion — while leaving the second pathway, the body's natural wound-healing response, completely intact.
The molecular target is a biological cascade called the Collagen–vWF–Platelet axis. When an artery wall is damaged by disease, a protein called von Willebrand factor (vWF) acts as a bridge between the damaged collagen and the platelet receptors, triggering the deadly adhesion plug. CelerisAI's molecules are designed to block this specific handshake — and only this handshake — leaving every other aspect of the blood's protective system untouched.
Imagine a security system that can tell the difference between a burglar and a paramedic, and only stops one. That is what this science is trying to build — inside the human bloodstream.
Additionally, the programme explores a second mechanism — modulating Factor XIa, a contact pathway that amplifies pathological clotting — pairing it with the primary blockade to create a compound that shuts down dangerous clot formation from two angles simultaneously, while actively protecting the haemostasis baseline that keeps surgical patients safe.
If it works as the science predicts, the bleeding risk would be functionally lower than every drug on the market today. Not incrementally lower. Categorically lower. A different axis entirely.
It means that someday — perhaps not so far away — a patient like Ramesh might not face that impossible choice. He could stay protected against his heart condition. And a surgical oncologist could remove his cancer on schedule, without fear of a bleeding catastrophe on the operating table.
It means a grandmother with atrial fibrillation who breaks her hip could be taken to the operating theatre the same day — not left in a hospital bed for 72 hours while her surgical team debates anticoagulation bridging, her mortality risk climbing with every hour of delay.
It means a 65-year-old on anticoagulants who develops a brain tumour could have it removed when it is still small and resectable — not when it has grown beyond surgical reach because the window kept closing.
It means a man with peripheral artery disease could have the bypass that saves his leg — without his surgeon gambling against catastrophic vessel bleed. It means cardiac patients who need valve surgery could have it without the cruel irony of their heart medicine making open-heart surgery too dangerous to perform.
It means the 40-billion-dollar antithrombotic market — built entirely on drugs that solve one problem by creating another — could finally have a successor that does not ask patients to choose between one kind of dying and another.
CelerisAI was founded by Dr. Chintan Raval, whose career has been spent at the precise intersection of thrombosis biology and translating complex haemostatic science into real, approved medicines. The programme is not theoretical.
The team has already navigated India's complex regulatory frameworks to develop and receive CDSCO approval for more than 10 sophisticated haemostat products — and has successfully launched 2 proprietary products into the Indian commercial market. This is not a laboratory concept in search of a team. The team already exists, and it has already delivered.
What CelerisAI is now building is something the field has never seen: a next-generation antithrombotic that does not compromise patient safety to achieve efficacy. A therapy that positions itself not on one axis of the old trade-off, but perpendicular to it — breaking the entire paradigm.
The $40 billion global antithrombotic market — $30 billion in anticoagulants alone, growing at 7% annually — is dominated by drugs that every cardiologist, surgeon, and patient knows are flawed. The first medicine that credibly eliminates that flaw will not merely capture market share. It will redefine the standard of care.
CelerisAI is building the medicine that finally breaks the bleeding trade-off. If this mission resonates with you — as a clinician, a patient advocate, or an investor — we want to hear from you.
Get in Touch