Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35570250›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions2022

Benefits and Risks Associated with Low-Dose Aspirin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Mingming Wang, Haijie Yu, Zuojing Li, Daxin Gong, Xiaoxi Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mingming WangSchool of Life Sciences and Biopharmaceutics, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, 110016, Liaoning, China.
Haijie YuDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Zuojing LiSchool of Medical Devices, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, 110016, Liaoning, China.
Daxin GongDepartment of Smart Hospital Administrative, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China.
Xiaoxi LiuSchool of Business Administration, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, 110016, Liaoning, China. liuxiaoxilibra@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0031-8102
Shenyang Pharmaceutical University · CNFirst Hospital of China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial. Moreover, evidence for the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with high cardiovascular risk remains limited.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the role of low-dose aspirin in primary prevention.

methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from the date of inception to August 2021. The efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke (IS), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality, whereas safety outcomes were major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Subgroup analyses were based on different cardiovascular risks and diabetes statuses. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed- and random-effects models, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to determine the robustness of the results.

resultsA total of 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of aspirin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of MACE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93), MI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95), and IS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93); however, aspirin also increased the risk of safety outcomes, i.e. major bleeding (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26-1.60), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11-1.59), and GI bleeding (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.44-2.54). Subgroup analyses revealed that in the absence of a statistically significant interaction, a trend toward a net benefit of lower incidence of cardiovascular events (number needed to treat of MACE: high risk: 682 vs. low risk: 2191) and lesser risk of bleeding events (number needed to harm of major bleeding: high risk: 983 vs. low risk: 819) was seen in the subgroup of high cardiovascular risk. Meanwhile, the greater MACE reduction was also detected in the high-risk group of diabetes or nondiabetes patients. Furthermore, a post hoc subgroup analysis indicated a significant rate reduction in patients aged ≤ 70 years but not in patients aged > 70 years. TSA confirmed the benefit of aspirin for MACE up to a relative risk reduction of 10%.

conclusionThe current study demonstrated that the cardiovascular benefits of low-dose aspirin were equally balanced by major bleeding events. In addition, the potential beneficial effects might be seen in the population ≤ 70 years of age with high cardiovascular risk and no increased risk of bleeding.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes MellitusMyocardial InfarctionAgedAspirinGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansIntracranial HemorrhagesPrimary PreventionRisk AssessmentAspirin

Identifiers

PMID35570250
OpenAlexW4280490035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.