Key result
Perioperative aspirin continuation in patients undergoing anatomical lung resection showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased major bleeding (OR 5.87) compared to no therapy.
Why the study?
Evidence guiding perioperative aspirin management for secondary prevention during anatomical lung resection, particularly regarding switches from other antiplatelets, remains limited.
Does perioperative continuation of low-dose aspirin increase major bleeding or reduce MACCEs in patients requiring secondary prevention who are undergoing elective anatomical lung resection?
Cohort (n=625)
No
Does perioperative continuation of low-dose aspirin increase major bleeding or reduce MACCEs in patients requiring secondary prevention who are undergoing elective anatomical lung resection?
Odds Ratio: 5.87 (95% CI 0.8–42.91)
p-value: p=0.08
Continuing perioperative aspirin in high-risk patients undergoing anatomical lung resection did not significantly increase major bleeding or MACCE compared to no therapy, though limited statistical power necessitates individualized clinical judgment.
May warrant individualized aspirin decisions due to bleeding trend; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Managing perioperative aspirin for secondary prevention during lung resection balances major bleeding against catastrophic thromboembolism. Evidence guiding this scenario, especially for real-world strategies involving switches from other antiplatelets, remains limited for anatomical resections. METHODS: This retrospective study (2018-2025) included 625 patients undergoing anatomical lung resection. We compared aspirin continuation (Group 1, n = 94; chronic users or clopidogrel switchers) with no-therapy controls (Group 3, n = 468). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) was used to balance 16 predefined covariates. The discontinuation group (Group 2, n = 63) served as a descriptive clinical reference. Primary endpoints were major bleeding (reoperation, ≥ 4 units RBC transfusion, or death) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 30 days. RESULTS: After IPW adjustment, all covariates achieved satisfactory balance (SMD < 0.1). Group 1 showed a potential trend toward increased major bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 5.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-42.91; p = 0.08), but no significant difference in MACCE (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.35-6.45; p = 0.58) compared to Group 3. In adjusted linear regression, aspirin was not an independent predictor of intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.25). Notably, Group 2 (discontinuation) exhibited alarmingly high rates of MACCE (7.9%) and 90-day mortality (4.8%). Analyses for rare events were statistically underpowered. CONCLUSION: Continuing aspirin showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased major bleeding, so its overall safety remains uncertain. However, the high event rates after stopping therapy highlight the significant risk of thromboembolism. Clinical judgment must carefully balance individual thrombotic benefits with potential bleeding risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murakami et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Malignant conditions requiring elective anatomical lung resection (n=625). Perioperative aspirin continuation vs. No history of antithrombotic therapy was evaluated on Major bleeding within 30 days (OR 5.87, 95% CI 0.80-42.91, p=0.08). Perioperative aspirin continuation in patients undergoing anatomical lung resection showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased major bleeding (OR 5.87) compared to no therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: