Why the study?
Does low-dose aspirin reduce mortality and thromboembolic events at the cost of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring secondary prevention?
Does low-dose aspirin reduce mortality and thromboembolic events at the cost of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring secondary prevention?
Low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention has a favorable benefit-to-risk profile, preventing one death for every 67 patients treated while causing one nonfatal GI bleed for every 100 treated.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports low-dose aspirin in secondary prevention with net benefit; confirms established efficacy despite quantified bleeding risk.
BACKGROUND: In spite of the clear evidence of benefit of aspirin in the secondary prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thrombotic events, its use in patients at high risk due to a previous event remains suboptimal. A possible explanation for this underuse is concern regarding the relative benefit in relation to the potential risk for serious gastrointestinal events. OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefit and gastrointestinal risk of aspirin use for the secondary prevention of thromboembolic events. DESIGN: A meta-analysis was conducted using 6 trials (6300 patients) meeting the inclusion requirement of use of low-dose aspirin (< or =325 mg/d) in approved secondary prevention indications. RESULTS: Aspirin reduced all-cause mortality by 18%. In addition, aspirin use reduced the number of strokes by 20%, myocardial infarctions by 30%, and other "vascular events" by 30%. Alternately, patients who took aspirin were 2.5 times more likely than those in the placebo group to have gastrointestinal tract bleeding. The number needed to treat for aspirin to prevent 1 death from any cause of mortality was 67, while 100 needed to be treated to detect 1 nonfatal gastrointestinal tract bleeding. CONCLUSION: Aspirin use for the secondary prevention of thromboembolic events has a favorable benefit-to-risk profile and should be encouraged in those at high risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weisman et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: