mccoy Posted July 18, 2023 Report Share Posted July 18, 2023 Are you guys updated on the (baby) aspirin topic used as CV risk prevention? The rationale was that it reduced clotting hence the risk of stroke and infarction. Presently, many sources say that if there is not a condition of substantial CV risk the benefits may be lower than the collateral effects (for example, bleeding, or as discussed in this forum, increased risk of some cancers in elderly people). What is a present reliable strategy, aside of all the noise present on the internet? My wife is taking that but on the basis of an MR brain exam which really didn't show very much and even the doctors are not unanimous on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Put Posted July 19, 2023 Report Share Posted July 19, 2023 16 hours ago, mccoy said: Are you guys updated on the (baby) aspirin topic used as CV risk prevention? The rationale was that it reduced clotting hence the risk of stroke and infarction. Presently, many sources say that if there is not a condition of substantial CV risk the benefits may be lower than the collateral effects (for example, bleeding, or as discussed in this forum, increased risk of some cancers in elderly people). What is a present reliable strategy, aside of all the noise present on the internet? My wife is taking that but on the basis of an MR brain exam which really didn't show very much and even the doctors are not unanimous on it. Based on what I have read, it's not worth it in healthy people. If there is a real concern about clotting, maybe explore nattokinase? Of course, consult a physician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted July 21, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2023 Thanks, I too am leaning toward the hypothesis that the benefits are not worth the possible detriments in non-CV compromised people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewab Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 Hi Mccoy, I've looked into aspirin a little as I have a risk profile (due to a unique surgical history) that some doctors were encouraging aspirin use for. When reviewing some of the literature online, I came across the numbers needed to treat frequently and was never all that impressed by what aspirin had to offer. This 2003 publication titled "Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: calculating benefit and harm in the individual patient" may be relevant. This publication presents two interesting case studies with two respective statements that are noteworthy: Case One Aspirin therapy for 1 year in patients with this risk profile would have a number needed to treat of 385 (95% confidence interval 263, 1000) to prevent one cardiovascular event, and number needed to harm of 476 (95% confidence interval 370, 625) to cause one additional gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Case Two In this case, the annual number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular event would be 153 (95% confidence interval 87, 333), with a corresponding number needed to harm of 133 (95% confidence interval 105, 182) to cause one additional gastrointestinal haemorrhage. More recently, this 2019 meta-analyses in the New England Journal of Medicine may be noteworthy. In indicates: The estimated number needed to treat (NNT) for 10 years to prevent 1 [cardiovascular] event was 265. Personally, I look at this and cannot help but think that 265 people needing to receive aspirin therapy for a decade to prevent one cardiovascular event is unjustifiable and isn't even close to worth it. Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted July 24, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 Thanks drewab for the references Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.