A Meta-Analysis of Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in the Context of Contemporary Preventive Strategies

BackgroundThe role of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases remains controversial, particularly in the context of contemporary aggressive preventive strategies.MethodsRelevant randomized clinical trials were included, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. Additional moderator analyses were performed to compare the pooled treatment effects from recent trials (those reported after the guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program Third Adult Treatment Panel were published in 2001; thus, conducted on the background of contemporary preventive strategies) to the results of older trials.ResultsData from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 164,751 patients were included. Aspirin use decreased myocardial infarction risk by 16% compared with placebo (RR 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94); however, in the moderator analyses, aspirin was not associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction in recent trials, but was in older trials (P-interaction = .02). Overall, aspirin use significantly increased the occurrence of major bleeding (RR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32-1.69) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54). In moderator analyses, the risk of major bleeding (P-interaction = .12) or hemorrhagic stroke (P-interaction = .44) with aspirin was not significantly different between the older and new trials. Differences between aspirin and placebo in the risks for all-cause stroke, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality were not found.ConclusionsIn the context of contemporary primary prevention guidelines, the effect of aspirin on myocardial infarction risk was significantly attenuated, whereas its major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke complications were retained. Therefore, in contemporary practice, routine use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events may have a net harmful effect.     

Aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on diabetic patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AimsThe publication of new trials brought additional data to the controversial topic of aspirin use in diabetic patients for primary prevention. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review all randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical impact of aspirin in this setting.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of aspirin in patients with diabetes in primary prevention, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (November/2018). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A meta-analysis was performed deriving risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAll-cause mortality was not significantly reduced with RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.90–1.03; 7RCT; 27,595 patients). Regarding MACE, there was an 8% risk reduction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.999; I² = 0%; 8RCT; 29,814 patients). The risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10–1.53; 2RCTs, 18,019 patients), and major GI bleeding (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; 2RCTs, 18,019 patients) were significantly increased.The risks of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation were not significantly different from control arm.ConclusionsAspirin use among diabetic patients in primary prevention appears was associated with increased risk of major bleeding, a modest decrease of MACE and lack of mortality benefit.     

阿司匹林对糖尿病患者心脑血管事件一级预防的荟萃分析

目的 系统评价阿司匹林对糖尿病患者心脑血管事件一级预防的疗效及安全性.方法 电子检索数据席MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、维普数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库等,文献检索时间为建库至2009年7月,检索关键词包括阿司匹林、糖尿病、一级预防、心血管事件、心肌梗死、卒中,文献语种不限.检索纳入文献的参考文献.纳入阿司匹林降低糖尿病患者心脑血管并发症的所有前瞻性随机对照试验,评价纳入研究的方法学质量,并提取符合纳入标准的数据,采用RevMan 5.0软件进行荟专笔分析.结果 共纳入4项随机对照试验中的5883例糖尿病患者.荟萃分析结果显示:阿司匹林可使糖尿病患者卒中事件的发生率降低近30%(RR=0.71,95%CI为0.55～0.93,P=0.01),阿司匹林组与对照组主要心血管事件(RR=0.90,95%CI为0.77～1.04,P=0.15)及心肌梗死事件(RR=1.02,95%CI为0.78～1.32,P=0.90)无显著差异.阿司匹林对不同性别糖尿病患者主要心血管事件的影响无显著差异.阿司匹林可使糖尿病患者主要出血事件的发生风险增加4倍(RR=4.03,95%CI为2.09～7.78,P<0.0001),阿司匹林组与对照组心源性死亡事件(RR=0.85,95%CI为0.32～2.24,P=0.74)及全因死亡事件(RR=0.87,95%CI为0.47～1.61,P=0.67)无显著差异.结论 阿司匹林能显著降低糖尿病患者卒中事件的发生风险,增加出血事件的发生风险.     

Low-dose aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis

Objective

Many recommendations for aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease are based on analyses of all antiplatelet therapies at all dosages and in both stable and unstable patients. Our objective was to evaluate the benefit and risk of low-dose aspirin (50-325 mg/d) in patients with stable cardiovascular disease.

Methods

Secondary prevention trials of low-dose aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease were identified by searches of the MEDLINE database from 1966 to 2006. Six randomized trials were identified that enrolled patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) (n = 1), stable angina (n = 1), or stroke/transient ischemic attack (n = 4). A random effects model was used to combine results from individual trials.

Results

Six studies randomized 9853 patients. Aspirin therapy was associated with a significant 21% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events (nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.88), 26% reduction in the risk of nonfatal MI (95% CI, 0.60-0.91), 25% reduction in the risk of stroke (95% CI, 0.65-0.87), and 13% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality (95% CI, 0.76-0.98). Patients treated with aspirin were significantly more likely to experience severe bleeding (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). Treatment of 1000 patients for an average of 33 months would prevent 33 cardiovascular events, 12 nonfatal MIs, 25 nonfatal strokes, and 14 deaths, and cause 9 major bleeding events. Among those with ischemic heart disease, aspirin was most effective at reducing the risk of nonfatal MI and all-cause mortality; however, among those with cerebrovascular disease, aspirin was most effective at reducing the risk of stroke.

Conclusion

In patients with stable cardiovascular disease, low-dose aspirin therapy reduces the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and increases the risk of severe bleeding.     

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.ConclusionsAspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.     

Aspirin for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: safety and absolute benefit related to coronary risk derived from meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE—To determine the cardiovascular and coronary risk thresholds at which aspirin for primary prevention of coronary heart disease is safe and worthwhile.
DESIGN—Meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials of aspirin for primary prevention. The benefit and harm from aspirin treatment were examined to determine: (1) the cardiovascular and coronary risk threshold at which benefit in prevention of myocardial infarction exceeds harm from significant bleeding; and (2) the absolute benefit expressed as number needed to treat (NNT) for aspirin net of cerebral haemorrhage and other bleeding complications at different levels of coronary risk.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Benefit from aspirin, expressed as reduction in cardiovascular events, myocardial infarctions, strokes, and total mortality; harm caused by aspirin in relation to significant bleeds and major haemorrhages.
RESULTS—Aspirin for primary prevention significantly reduced all cardiovascular events by 15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 6% to 22%) and myocardial infarctions by 30% (95% CI 21% to 38%), and non-significantly reduced all deaths by 6% (95% CI −4% to 15%). Aspirin non-significantly increased strokes by 6% (95% CI −24% to 9%) and significantly increased bleeding complications by 69% (95% CI 38% to 107%). The risk of major bleeding balanced the reduction in cardiovascular events when cardiovascular event risk was 0.22%/year. The upper 95% CI for this estimate suggests that harm from aspirin is unlikely to outweigh benefit provided the cardiovascular event risk is 0.8%/year, equivalent to a coronary risk of 0.6%/year. At coronary event risk 1.5%/year, the five year NNT was 44 to prevent a myocardial infarction, and 77 to prevent a myocardial infarction net of any important bleeding complication. At coronary event risk 1%/year the NNT was 67 to prevent a myocardial infarction, and 182 to prevent a myocardial infarction net of important bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS—Aspirin treatment for primary prevention is safe and worthwhile at coronary event risk  1.5%/year; safe but of limited value at coronary risk 1%/year; and unsafe at coronary event risk 0.5%/year. Advice on aspirin for primary prevention requires formal accurate estimation of absolute coronary event risk.


Keywords: aspirin; coronary heart disease; primary prevention; meta-analysis     

P2Y12 Inhibitors versus Aspirin Monotherapy for Long-term Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) need long-term antiplatelet therapy to decrease the risk of future ASCVD events. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through September 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating P2Y₁₂ inhibitors vs aspirin for secondary prevention of ASCVD events. Seven RCTs including a total of 56,982 patients were included in this analysis. The median follow-up duration was 22.8 (IQR 12) months. When P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were compared with aspirin as long-term antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of ASCVD events, there was a significant decrease in the risk of myocardial infarction [RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94], and stroke [RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83-0.99]. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.92-1.12], or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.83-1.08] between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin users. Additionally, there was no significant difference in major bleeding events [RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.74-1.04], or all bleeding events [RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33] between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin groups. Use of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy is associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction and stroke in ASCVD patients without any significant difference in mortality, or bleeding compared to aspirin monotherapy.     

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis

BackgroundTo systematically review trials concerning the benefit and risk of aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies were prospective, randomized controlled trials of aspirin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes with follow-up duration at least 12 months.Results7 trials included 11,618 individuals with diabetes. Aspirin therapy was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in major cardiovascular events (relative risk [RR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–1.02, p = 0.11). Aspirin use also did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06; p = 0.33), cardiovascular mortality (0.95, 95% CI 0.71–1.27; p = 0.71), stroke (0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.10; p = 0.20), or myocardial infarction (MI) (0.85, 95% CI 0.65–1.11; p = 0.24). There was no significant increased risk of major bleeding in aspirin group (2.46, 95% CI 0.70–8.61; p = 0.16). Meta-regression suggested that aspirin agent could reduce the risk of stroke in women and MI in men.ConclusionsIn patients with diabetes, aspirin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events without an increased risk of major bleeding, and showed sex-specific effects on MI and stroke.     

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with an Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

The recent American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) recommend DAPT for 1 year in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, with a Class IIb recommendation for continuation. We aim to assess the evidence for these recommendations using a meta-analytic approach.

小剂量阿司匹林对心血管病一级预防效果及安全性的系统评价

目的 系统评价小剂量阿司匹林在高危人群中一级预防心血管病的有效性和安全性.方法 计算机检索MEDLINE、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆(2008年第3期)、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国学术期刊全文数据库,同时筛检了纳入文献的参考文献.收集小剂量阿司匹林(75～150 mg)一级预防心血管病的随机对照试验(RCT),2名评价员独立评价文献质量和提取资料,并采用RevMan4.2软件对资料进行荟萃分析.结果 共纳入6个研究(TPT,HOT,PPP,WHS,POPADAD,JPAD),72 466例患者.(1)小剂量阿司匹林总的心血管事件的发生率(RR=0.85,95% CI:0.80～0.92)、卒中发生率(RR=0.87,95% CI:0.77～0.98)、非致死性卒中发生率(RR=0.81,95%CI:0.70～0.95)、短暂脑缺血发作发生率(RR=0.76,95%CI:0.64～0.90)均低于安慰剂(均P＜0.05).(2)小剂量阿司匹林非致死性心肌梗死(RR=0.89,95%CI:0.77～1.02)、心血管性死亡(RR=0.98,95% CI:0.86～1.13)、全因死亡发生率(RR=0.95,95%CI:0.88～1.02)与安慰剂比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).(3)在老年人群中分析显示,小剂量阿司匹林冠心病的发生率低于安慰剂(RR=0.81,95%CI:0.70～0.94,P＜0.01).(4)在安全性方面,与安慰剂比较,小剂量阿司匹林有出血并发症的风险(RR=1.15,95%CI:1.12～1.18,P＜0.01),而在过敏反应方面差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 小剂最阿司匹林能降低总的心血管事件、短暂脑缺血发作、卒中、非致死性卒中的发生率;对降低非致死性心肌梗死、心血管性死亡、全因死亡方面效果不明显;在老年人群中小剂量阿司匹林能降低冠心病的发牛率;长期应用无明显过敏反应,但存在出血并发症的风险.     

Long-Acting Calcium Antagonists in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in patients with coronary artery disease remains controversial, with reports of increased risk of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality. Short-acting CCBs have an unfavorable hemodynamic profile. The role of long-acting CCBs in patients with coronary artery disease is unknown.

Methods

MEDLINE/CENTRAL/EMBASE database were searched from 1966 to August 2008 for randomized controlled trials of long-acting CCBs in patients with coronary artery disease with follow-up for at least 1 year. We extracted from the studies the baseline characteristics and 6 outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

Results

Of the 100 randomized controlled trials of CCBs in patients with coronary artery disease, 15 studies evaluating 47,694 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. When compared with the comparison group (including placebo), CCBs were not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.05), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.11), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06), or heart failure (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71-1.05), and with a 21% reduction in the risk of stroke (95% CI, 0.70-0.89) and 18% reduction in the risk of angina pectoris (95% CI, 0.72-0.94). When compared with placebo, CCBs resulted in a 28% reduction in the risk of heart failure (95% CI, 0.73-0.92). The results were similar for both dihydropyridines and nondihydropyridine CCBs.

Conclusions

In patients with coronary artery disease, long-acting CCBs (either dihydropyridines or nondihydropyridines), were associated with a reduction in the risk of stroke, angina pectoris, and heart failure, with similar outcomes for other cardiovascular events as the comparison group.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events of low-dose aspirin and clopidogrel in randomized controlled trials

Purpose

We performed a systematic review to define the relative and absolute risk of clinically relevant adverse events with the antiplatelet agents, aspirin and clopidogrel.

Materials and methods

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of low-dose aspirin (75-325 mg/dayay) or clopidogrel administered for cardiovascular prophylaxis. Relative risks (RR) were determined by meta-analysis of 22 trials for aspirin versus placebo and from single studies for aspirin versus clopidogrel, aspirin versus aspirin/clopidogrel, and clopidogrel versus aspirin/clopidogrel. Absolute risk increase was calculated by multiplying RR increase by the pooled weighted incidence of the control.

Results

Aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.08), major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (RR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.61-2.66), and intracranial bleeding (RR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-5.99) versus placebo. No difference between 75-162.5 mg/day and >162.5-325 mg/day aspirin versus placebo was seen. The absolute annual increases attributable to aspirin were major bleeding: 0.13% (95% CI, 0.08-0.20); major GI bleeding: 0.12% (95% CI, 0.07-0.19), intracranial bleeding: 0.03% (95% CI, 0.01-0.08). No study compared clopidogrel with placebo. One study showed increased major GI bleeding (but not non-GI bleeding endpoints) with aspirin versus clopidogrel (RR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.00-2.10). The absolute annual increase was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.28).

Conclusions

Low-dose aspirin increases the risk of major bleeding by ∼70%, but the absolute increase is modest: 769 patients (95% CI, 500-1250) need to be treated with aspirin to cause one additional major bleeding episode annually. Compared with clopidogrel, aspirin increases the risk of GI bleeding but not other bleeding; however, 883 patients (95% CI, 357-∞) would need to be treated with clopidogrel versus aspirin to prevent one major GI bleeding episode annually at a cost of over 1 million dollars.     

An overview of the 4 randomized trials of aspirin therapy in the primary prevention of vascular disease

BACKGROUND: In the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, in contrast to the recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Heart Association, the US Food and Drug Administration recently stated that there was insufficient evidence to judge whether aspirin therapy decreases the risk of a first myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVE: To perform an overview of the 4 primary prevention trials of aspirin therapy to obtain the most reliable estimates of the effects of aspirin therapy on various vascular disease end points. METHODS AND RESULTS: These 4 trials included more than 51,000 subjects and 2284 important vascular events. Those assigned to aspirin therapy experienced significant reductions of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21%-41%) for nonfatal myocardial infarction and 13% (95% CI, 5%-19%) for any important vascular event. There were possible small but nonsignificant increases in risks of vascular disease-related death (1%; 95% CI, -12% to 16%) and nonfatal stroke (8%; 95% CI, -12% to 33%). When strokes were subdivided by type, there was no significant effect of aspirin therapy on the risk of ischemic stroke, but, while based on small numbers, there was a 1.7-fold apparent increase (95% CI, 6%-269%) in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, which did achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: For the primary prevention of vascular disease, aspirin therapy confers significant beneficial effects on first myocardial infarction and, as a result, on any important vascular event; these effects are clinically important. Whether there is any reduction in vascular disease-related death or stroke associated with treatment remains unclear because of inadequate numbers of events in the primary prevention trials completed to date. More data on hemorrhagic stroke are also needed. In addition, randomized trial data, especially in women but also in men, are needed to help to formulate a rational public health policy for individuals at usual risk. Meanwhile, these data provide evidence for a significant benefit of aspirin therapy in the primary prevention of myocardial infarction.     

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended as adjuncts to fibrinolytic-treated patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the role of switching to ticagrelor within 24 h of fibrinolytics compared with clopidogrel continuation in this setting is uncertain. Hence, we conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with STEMI. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of ticagrelor post-fibrinolysis were identified. We included 3 RCTs with 3999 total patients for our meta-analysis. The results showed similar short-term clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel with regard to rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type?≥?2 bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.56–1.60; P?=?0.83), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.49–1.52; P?=?0.62), mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.53–1.59; P?=?0.77), myocardial infarction (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.43–1.36; P?=?0.36), and stroke (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50–1.73; P?=?0.82). Our results demonstrate that in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy, switching to ticagrelor was associated with similar bleeding and ischemic outcomes compared with clopidogrel continuation.     

Long-term Effect of Chronic Oral Anticoagulation with Warfarin after Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background

Antiplatelet therapy is the principal component of the antithrombotic regimen after acute myocardial infarction. It remains unclear whether additional chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) improves outcomes. We set out to evaluate the risk and benefit of long-term OAC after myocardial infarction.

Methods

We pooled 10 randomized clinical trials comparing warfarin-containing regimens (OAC) with or without aspirin with non-OAC regimens with or without aspirin (No OAC) for patients with recent infarction. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Other endpoints included recurrent infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) (fixed effect, OR <1 indicates benefit for OAC) for death and other ischemic and hemorrhagic complications at the longest interval of follow-up available.

Results

Among 24,542 patients, 14,062 were assigned to OAC and 10,480 to no OAC. The patients were followed for 3-63 months, for 89,562 patient-years. Death occurred in 2424 patients (9.9%), 1279 OAC patients, and 1145 in the no OAC group, OR 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.05), P = .43. Similarly, there was no effect on recurrent infarction. Stroke occurred in 578 patients (2.4%), 271 in the OAC group and 307 in the no OAC group, OR 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.89), P = .001. There was substantially more major bleeding (OR 1.83 [95% CI, 1.50-2.23], P <.001) in the OAC group. Separate analyses, performed for patients (n = 11,920) randomized to aspirin versus aspirin and OAC yielded very similar results.

Conclusion

As compared with placebo or aspirin, OAC with or without aspirin does not reduce mortality or reinfarction, reduces stroke, but is associated with significantly more major bleeding.     

Weighing the Anti-Ischemic Benefits and Bleeding Risks from Aspirin Therapy: a Rational Approach

Purpose of Review

The role of aspirin in secondary cardiovascular prevention is well understood; however, the role in primary prevention is less clear, and requires careful balancing of potential benefits with risks. Here, we summarize the evidence base on the benefits and risks of aspirin therapy, discuss clinical practice guidelines and decision support tools to assist in initiating aspirin therapy, and highlight ongoing trials that may clarify the role of aspirin in cardiovascular disease prevention.

Recent Findings

In 2016, the USPSTF released guidelines on the use of aspirin for primary prevention. Based on 11 trials (n?=?118,445), aspirin significantly reduced all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and in 7 trials that evaluated aspirin ≤?100 mg/day, there was significant reduction in nonfatal stroke. The USPSTF recommends individualized use of aspirin based on factors including age, 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score, and bleeding risk. Several ongoing trials are evaluating the role of aspirin in primary prevention, secondary prevention, and in combination therapy for atrial fibrillation. Evidence-based approaches to aspirin use should consider the anti-ischemic benefits and bleeding risks from aspirin. In this era of precision medicine, tools that provide the personalized benefit to risk assessment, such as the freely available clinical decision support tool (Aspirin-Guide), can be easily incorporated into the electronic health record and facilitate more informed decisions about initiating aspirin therapy for primary prevention.

Summary

Aspirin has a complex matrix of benefits and risks, and its use in primary prevention requires individualized decision-making. Results from ongoing trials may guide healthcare providers in identifying appropriate candidates for aspirin therapy.

     

阿司匹林在心血管病一级预防的地位

阿司匹林作为急性心肌梗死和冠心病二级预防的基础药物已得到广泛认可,然而近年来关于阿司匹林对心血管疾病的一级预防依然存在争议。阿司匹林可降低心脑血管事件的发生率,但同时又可增加出血事件。如何将其合理地运用在心血管疾病一级预防中使更多的患者获益是临床工作者的一大难题。越来越多的大规模临床研究表明阿司匹林作为心血管疾病一级预防药物的关键在于把握危险分层,进一步评价患者的状况,规范使用阿司匹林将会有效地减少心血管疾病的风险。与此同时国外许多指南及我国专家的共识均能指导医生在心血管疾病一级预防中规范地运用阿司匹林。     

Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

Choosing an antithrombotic regimen after coronary intervention in patients with concomitant indication for anticoagulation is a challenge commonly encountered by clinicians.

Role of Niacin in Current Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review

Background

Niacin, a potent high-density lipoprotein cholesterol-raising drug, seems an attractive approach to reduce cardiac events in patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, previous evidence for niacin has been challenged recently by negative outcomes in 2 large, randomized, controlled trials comparing niacin to placebo with background statin therapy. We studied the currently available evidence for the role of niacin treatment for reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in current practice.

Efficacy of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers in Coronary Artery Disease without Heart Failure in the Modern Statin Era: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials

Purpose

Current practice guidelines support the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) without heart failure (HF). However, a number of cited trials were performed prior to the era of prevalent statin use. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ACEi and ARBs in reducing cardiovascular events as well as the impact of statin therapy.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for randomized-controlled trials (1/1/1980 – 8/31/2015) with ACEi or ARBs as the single intervention for patients with CAD without HF. We assessed the outcomes of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. The relationship between these outcomes and the percentages of patients on statin therapy was evaluated using meta-regression analysis.

Results

A total of ten ACEi trials and five ARB trials were included for analysis, with 78,761 patients followed for a mean of 36 months. Treatment with ACEi was associated with decreased non-fatal MI (RR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.75–0.91), stroke (RR 0.76; 95 % CI 0.68–0.86), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.72–0.95), and all-cause mortality (RR 0.86; 95 % CI 0.80–0.93). Treatment with ARBs was associated only with a decreased incidence of stroke (RR 0.92; 95 % CI 0.87–0.98). When adjusted for statin use, there was a trend towards an attenuated effect of ACEi in reducing cardiovascular mortality with increased use of statins (p-value?=?0.063).

Conclusion

In CAD patients without HF, ACEi, but not ARBs decreases the risk of non-fatal MI, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, while both ACEi and ARBs decrease the risk of stroke.