P667Aspirin in primary prevention. Risks and benefits. Up date 2019. A meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract The usefulness of aspirin in patients without a cardiovascular history continues to be a subject of controversy. Objectives 1. Perform an updated meta-analysis on the use of aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention. 2. Analyze the results by risk. Methods This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, AMI, and ischemic stroke. The measures of effect size are expressed as odds ratios. The level of statistical significance was established at 0.05. Characteristics of the studies Trials Year N Follow-up Risk RTPDABMD 1988 5,139 5.5 Middle PHS 1989 22,071 5 Low HOT 1998 18,790 3.8 Middle TPT 1998 5,085 6.7 Middle PPP 2001 44,95 3.6 Low WHS 2005 39,876 10.1 Low JPAD 2008 2,539 4.4 Low POPADAD 2008 1276 6.7 High AAA 2010 3,350 8.2 Low JPPP 2014 14,464 5 Low ASCEND 2018 15,480 7.4 Middle ARRIVE 2018 12,546 5 Low ASPREE 2018 19,114 4.7 Low RTPDABMD, Randomised trial of prophylactic daily aspirin in British male doctors; PHS, Physicians' Health Study; HOT, Hypertension Optimal Treatment; TPT, Thrombosis Prevention Trial; PPP, Primary Prevention Project; WHS, Women's Health Study; JPAD, Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis With Aspirin for Diabetes; POPADAD, Prevention of Progression of Arterial Disease and Diabetes; AAA, Aspirin for Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis; JPPP, Japanese Primary Prevention Project; ASCEND, A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes; ARRIVE, Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events; ASPREE, Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly. Figure 1 Results Thirteen works were considered for the analysis (Table 1). A total of 164,225 patients were included, 82,900 in the aspirin arm and 81,325 in the control group. A reduction of the primary endpoint was observed in the AAS group (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85–0.94). No differences by risk group (Figure 1). Risk of severe bleeding was significantly higher in patients treated with ASA (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.34–1.56), this difference was maintained by risk (Figure 1). Acknowledgement/Funding None