Cargando…
Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention
Aspirin’s antithrombotic effects have a long-established place in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and its traditional use as a core therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is well recognized. However, with the advent of newer antiplatelet agents and an increasing understanding of asp...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34824680 http://dx.doi.org/10.14797/mdcvj.293 |
_version_ | 1784598551051894784 |
---|---|
author | Murphy, Ella Curneen, James M. G. McEvoy, John W. |
author_facet | Murphy, Ella Curneen, James M. G. McEvoy, John W. |
author_sort | Murphy, Ella |
collection | PubMed |
description | Aspirin’s antithrombotic effects have a long-established place in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and its traditional use as a core therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is well recognized. However, with the advent of newer antiplatelet agents and an increasing understanding of aspirin’s bleeding risks, its role across the full spectrum of modern CVD prevention has become less certain. As a consequence, recent trials have begun investigating aspirin-free strategies in secondary prevention. For example, a contemporary metanalysis of trials that assessed P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy versus prolonged (≥ 12 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (which includes aspirin) after percutaneous coronary intervention reported a lower risk of major bleeding and no increase in stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the P2Y(12) monotherapy group. In contrast to secondary prevention, aspirin’s role in primary prevention has always been more controversial. While historical trials reported a reduction in MI and stroke, more contemporary trials have suggested diminishing benefit for aspirin in this setting, with no reduction in hard outcomes, and some primary prevention trials have even indicated a potential for harm. In this review, we discuss how changing population demographics, enhanced control of lipids and blood pressure, changes in the definition of outcomes like MI, evolution of aspirin formulations, and updated clinical practice guidelines have all impacted the use of aspirin for primary and secondary CVD prevention. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8588762 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85887622021-11-24 Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Murphy, Ella Curneen, James M. G. McEvoy, John W. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J Review Aspirin’s antithrombotic effects have a long-established place in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and its traditional use as a core therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is well recognized. However, with the advent of newer antiplatelet agents and an increasing understanding of aspirin’s bleeding risks, its role across the full spectrum of modern CVD prevention has become less certain. As a consequence, recent trials have begun investigating aspirin-free strategies in secondary prevention. For example, a contemporary metanalysis of trials that assessed P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy versus prolonged (≥ 12 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (which includes aspirin) after percutaneous coronary intervention reported a lower risk of major bleeding and no increase in stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the P2Y(12) monotherapy group. In contrast to secondary prevention, aspirin’s role in primary prevention has always been more controversial. While historical trials reported a reduction in MI and stroke, more contemporary trials have suggested diminishing benefit for aspirin in this setting, with no reduction in hard outcomes, and some primary prevention trials have even indicated a potential for harm. In this review, we discuss how changing population demographics, enhanced control of lipids and blood pressure, changes in the definition of outcomes like MI, evolution of aspirin formulations, and updated clinical practice guidelines have all impacted the use of aspirin for primary and secondary CVD prevention. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center 2021-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8588762/ /pubmed/34824680 http://dx.doi.org/10.14797/mdcvj.293 Text en Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Review Murphy, Ella Curneen, James M. G. McEvoy, John W. Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention |
title | Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention |
title_full | Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention |
title_fullStr | Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention |
title_full_unstemmed | Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention |
title_short | Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention |
title_sort | aspirin in the modern era of cardiovascular disease prevention |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34824680 http://dx.doi.org/10.14797/mdcvj.293 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT murphyella aspirininthemoderneraofcardiovasculardiseaseprevention AT curneenjamesmg aspirininthemoderneraofcardiovasculardiseaseprevention AT mcevoyjohnw aspirininthemoderneraofcardiovasculardiseaseprevention |