Aspirin in Cardiovascular Prevention

An Evidence-Based Review of Efficacy, Safety, Dose–Response, and Patient-Specific Stratification in Primary and Secondary Prevention

Publisher	Curing Heart Disease, LLC — curingheartdisease.com
Author	Peter Megdal, PhD
Document type	Educational evidence review (clinician- and informed-reader-facing)
Version	2.2 — final (publication-ready)
Release date	June 23, 2026
Suggested review date	June 2028, or upon revision of USPSTF / ACC-AHA aspirin guidance
Evidence basis	Primary peer-reviewed trials, individual-participant meta-analyses, and guideline statements published in peer-reviewed journals (JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, Circulation). Guideline anchors: USPSTF 2022; ACC/AHA Prevenzione primaria 2019; AHA/ACC Chronic Coronary Disease 2023; ACC/AHA Acute Coronary Syndromes 2025.
Disclosures	No commercial sponsorship. No finanziamento industriale. Author reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

 

Key safety framing — read first •    The benefit–risk balance of aspirin differs fundamentally between secondary prevention (people who already have established malattia cardiovascolare) and primary prevention (people who do not). Conclusions in one setting do not transfer to the other. •    For primary prevention, current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance recommends an individualized decision only for adults aged 40–59 with a 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher who are not at increased bleeding risk, and recommends against initiating aspirin in adults aged 60 or older. •    “Do not initiate for primary prevention” is not the same as “stop aspirin” or “never use aspirin.” People taking aspirin for established disease should not discontinue it based on primary-prevention data. •    This document is educational and does not constitute individual medical advice. Any decision to start, change, or stop aspirin should be made with a qualified clinician, who can weigh personal ischemic and bleeding risk.

Contenuti

1. Introduction and the primary–secondary prevention paradigm…………………………………………. 3
2. Pharmacology and mechanism of action……………………………………………………………………….. 3
3. Dose–response and dosing frequency………………………………………………………………………….. 4
4. Body weight and mass-based dosing……………………………………………………………………………. 5
5. Patient-specific considerations……………………………………………………………………………………… 6
6. Advanced risk stratification: coronary arteria calcium………………………………………………………. 7
7. Family history of premature coronary disease………………………………………………………………… 7
8. Complementary and alternative preventive strategies…………………………………………………….. 8
9. Quantitative benefit and harm………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
10. Summary of recommendations by population………………………………………………………………. 9
11. Synthesis: key questions………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
12. Plain-language summary………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
13. Limitations and evidence quality……………………………………………………………………………….. 11
14. Disclaimer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

1. Introduction and the primary–secondary prevention paradigm

The role of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) in cardiovascular medicine has narrowed substantially over the past two decades. Aspirin was once recommended broadly as a daily prophylactic for adults seeking to prevent cardiovascular disease; it is now understood to have a narrow therapeutic margin that depends heavily on an individual’s baseline ischemic and bleeding risk. Because aspirin prevents occlusive arterial events through the same antiplatelet mechanism that impairs normal hemostasis, its net value rises and falls with the absolute risk of the events it is meant to prevent.^[1,2]

The single most important distinction in interpreting the aspirin evidence is between two populations. Secondary prevention applies to people with documented cardiovascular disease—prior infarto miocardico, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, stable or unstable angina, peripheral arterial disease, or prior rivascolarizzazione (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting). These individuals carry a high absolute risk of recurrent thrombotic events, so even a moderate rischio relativo reduction produces a large absolute benefit that clearly outweighs bleeding hazard. ^[2]

Primary prevention applies to people without clinically evident cardiovascular disease. Their absolute annual event rate is low, so the absolute number of ischemic events prevented is small and is largely offset by a parallel absolute increase in major bleeding, principally gastrointestinal hemorrhage and intracranial hemorrhage. This asymmetry—similar relative effects but very different absolute effects—is the central reason contemporary guidance has moved away from routine primary-prevention use. ^[2,1]

In the landmark individual-participant meta-analisi of the Antithrombotic Trialists’ (ATT) Collaboration, the proportional reduction in serious vascular events was broadly similar in the two settings, but the absolute effects diverged sharply: about a 0.06% per-year absolute reduction in primary prevention versus an absolute reduction roughly an order of magnitude larger in secondary prevention. ^[2]

Three modern primary-prevention trials reported in 2018 reinforced this picture in a contemporary treatment era. ARRIVE randomized 12,546 patients judged to be at moderate cardiovascular risk (and without diabete or high bleeding risk) to 100 mg of aspirin or placebo; it found no significant reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, with more gastrointestinal bleeding (mostly mild to moderate) and no difference in fatal events. Notably, the observed event rate was far lower than projected (roughly 9% versus an anticipated 17%), so the cohort effectively behaved like a lower-risk population—partly because many participants were already taking statine e antihypertensives. ^[16]

ARRIVE’s companions completed the contemporary trio: ASCEND tested aspirin in diabetes and ASPREE in older adults (both detailed in Section 5). Together, these trials are the empirical basis for the shift away from routine primary-prevention aspirin. ^[8,5]

2. Pharmacology and mechanism of action

Aspirin’s antithrombotic effect derives from irreversible inhibition of platelet cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1). Aspirin acetylates a serine residue (Ser-530) within the COX-1 catalytic channel, sterically blocking arachidonic acid from reaching the active site and permanently halting synthesis of the downstream prostanoid thromboxane A₂ (TxA₂), a potent promoter of platelet activation, aggregation, and vasoconstriction. ^[3,4]

Because platelets are anucleate and cannot synthesize new proteina, COX-1 blockade persists for the platelet’s entire lifespan of roughly 7–10 days. This durable antiplatelet effect contrasts with aspirin’s brief pharmacokinetic exposure: peak plasma concentration occurs within about 30–40 minutes and the plasma half-life is only about 15–20 minutes owing to rapid esterase hydrolysis to salicylate. Even transient portal and systemic exposure is sufficient to inactivate the circulating platelet pool. ^[3,4]

Vascular endothelial cells, by contrast, are nucleated and can resynthesize cyclooxygenase. They produce prostacyclin (PGI₂), a vasodilator and platelet inhibitor that physiologically opposes TxA₂. Low daily doses (about 75–100 mg) achieve near-complete platelet COX-1 inhibition while relatively sparing endothelial prostacyclin, in part because platelets are exposed to aspirin in the portal circulation before first-pass hepatic metabolism. Higher daily doses progressively suppress endothelial prostacyclin as well, eroding this selectivity without adding antithrombotic benefit. ^[3,4]

This dual influence defines aspirin’s benefit–risk profile. Suppressing platelet aggregation reduces shear-induced arterial trombosi at sites of rottura di placca, but the same impairment of hemostasis raises the risk of mucosal, gastrointestinal, and intracranial bleeding. ^[2,3]

3. Dose–response and dosing frequency

Pharmacodynamic studies show that platelet TxA₂ synthesis is nearly fully suppressed by daily doses in the 75–100 mg range, and that antiplatelet efficacy reaches a plateau above this range. Higher maintenance doses (for example 162–325 mg) have not shown added antithrombotic benefit in long-term prevention, and they are associated with greater dose-dependent gastrointestinal mucosal injury in pharmacologic and historical studies—though, as noted below, the randomized ADAPTABLE comparison did not itself detect a statistically significant difference in major bleeding. Single immediate-release loading doses of 162–325 mg are used in acute coronary syndromes and acute ischemic ictus to achieve rapid platelet inhibition; this is a distinct, acute indication. ^[3,4,23]

The clearest contemporary evidence on maintenance dose comes from the ADAPTABLE pragmatic trial, which randomized 15,076 patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily. Over a median 26.2 months, the primary effectiveness outcome (a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke) did not differ significantly (estimated event rates 7.28% for 81 mg versus 7.51% for 325 mg; hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.91–1.14), nor did hospitalization for major bleeding (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.79–1.77). ^[9]

These results should be read as “no significant difference was detected,” not as proof of exact equivalence. ADAPTABLE was open-label and had substantial crossover: roughly 41% of patients assigned to 325 mg switched to 81 mg, while only about 7% switched in the other direction. Such asymmetric crossover biases the comparison toward the null and limits how strongly a true dose difference can be excluded. With that caveat, the trial supports 81 mg daily as the preferred maintenance dose for most patients on the basis of comparable measured outcomes and better tolerability and adherence. Contemporary guidance is concordant: the 2023 AHA/ACC Chronic Coronary Disease guideline recommends low-dose aspirin (75–100 mg, commonly 81 mg) as a Class 1 (Level of Evidence A) single-antiplatelet strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease not on oral anticoagulation. ^[9,21]

Consistent with this, the CURRENT-OASIS 7 program in acute coronary syndromes found that continued higher-dose (300–325 mg) aspirin was not superior to lower-dose (75–100 mg) aspirin for major ischemic outcomes and was associated with more minor and gastrointestinal bleeding—reasoning echoed in the 2025 ACC/AHA acute coronary syndromes guideline, which endorses 75–100 mg for maintenance therapy. ^[10,22]

3.1 Dosing frequency and platelet turnover

Dosing interval is constrained by platelet turnover. The marrow releases a fraction of new, uninhibited platelets into the circulation each day, so once-daily dosing is required to maintain steady-state inhibition. Alternate-day dosing leaves “off-day” gaps during which newly formed platelets restore thromboxane capacity. In the Women’s Health Study, 100 mg of aspirin every other day did not significantly reduce the primary composite of major cardiovascular events in initially healthy women over roughly 10 years, although it reduced ischemic stroke. ^[15]

Pharmacodynamic work helps explain that result: 100 mg taken every other day produces less and more variable platelet inhibition than 81 mg taken daily, suggesting the alternate-day regimen may have under-dosed participants on off days. This reduced platelet suppression may partially explain the Women’s Health Study findings, although alternative explanations—lower-than-expected event rates, limited statistical power, and trial-design differences—may also contribute. By similar logic, extending the interval further (every third day) is not supported by clinical-endpoint evidence and is not recommended. ^[18,19,23]

Conversely, in conditions with accelerated platelet turnover—such as essential thrombocythemia and some patients with type 2 diabetes—once-daily dosing can leave incomplete inhibition before the next dose. Pharmacodynamic studies indicate that twice-daily low-dose aspirin can restore more consistent thromboxane suppression in these settings than simply increasing the once-daily dose; this remains a specialized strategy rather than general practice. ^[4]

4. Body weight and mass-based dosing

Whether a fixed low dose suits all body sizes is unsettled. In a pooled individual-participant analysis of more than 100,000 participants across primary- and secondary-prevention trials, Rothwell and colleagues reported a dose–weight interaction: low-dose aspirin (75–100 mg) reduced cardiovascular events mainly in people weighing under about 70 kg, with little benefit above that weight, whereas higher doses (≥325 mg) were effective mainly at higher body weight. The analysis also signaled potential harm at the extremes—greater case fatality of a first cardiovascular event in heavier people taking low-dose aspirin, and increased all-cause mortality among people under 50 kg (hazard ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.04–2.21). ^[11]

These findings are hypothesis-generating, not practice-defining, and have not been confirmed prospectively. In a prespecified analysis of ASPREE in older adults, body weight did not modify aspirin’s cardiovascular effect, and bleeding risk was not lower in heavier individuals. Pharmacodynamic studies in adults without diabetes have likewise found platelet inhibition by 81 mg or 325 mg to be largely independent of body mass. Subsequent analyses have not consistently replicated the body-weight interaction, and no major guideline currently recommends weight-adjusted aspirin dosing; the most reasonable current reading is that weight-tailored dosing is intriguing but not clinically actionable. ^[5,11]

5. Patient-specific considerations

5.1 Age

Bleeding risk rises steeply with age, while the absolute ischemic benefit of primary-prevention aspirin remains modest. The ASPREE trial randomized 19,114 community-dwelling adults (largely aged 70 and older) to 100 mg daily or placebo. Aspirin did not prolong disability-free survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92–1.11) and did not significantly reduce cardiovascular disease (10.7 versus 11.3 events per 1,000 person-years; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83–1.08), but it significantly increased major hemorrhage (8.6 versus 6.2 events per 1,000 person-years; HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18–1.62) and was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.29), largely cancer-related and interpreted cautiously by the investigators. ^[5,6,7]

These data underpin current guidance: in primary prevention, an individualized decision is reasonable only for adults aged 40–59 at sufficiently high cardiovascular risk and low bleeding risk, and initiation is not recommended at age 60 or older. The USPSTF additionally suggests considering discontinuation of primary-prevention aspirin around age 75. None of this applies to secondary prevention. ^[1]

5.2 Biological sex

Earlier sex-specific analyses suggested aspirin’s primary-prevention benefit was driven more by stroke reduction in women and myocardial-infarction reduction in men. Subsequent work indicates much of this apparent difference may reflect body-size and pharmacokinetic factors rather than sex-specific biology, and contemporary guidance does not recommend different aspirin strategies by sex in primary prevention. ^[2,11]

5.3 Diabetes mellitus

People with diabetes are at elevated cardiovascular risk, but they also bleed more. The ASCEND trial randomized 15,480 adults with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease to 100 mg daily or placebo. Over a mean 7.4 years, aspirin reduced serious vascular events (8.5% versus 9.6%; rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.97) but increased major bleeding (4.1% versus 3.2%; rate ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.09–1.52). The absolute benefit (about 1.1%) was closely matched by the absolute bleeding excess (about 0.9%), corresponding to roughly 91 treated to prevent one serious vascular event and roughly 112 treated to cause one major bleed; no subgroup showed benefit clearly exceeding harm. Aspirin in diabetes therefore requires individualized, shared decision-making rather than routine use. ^[8]

5.4 Concomitant risk factors

Active fumo and uncontrolled ipertensione raise both atherosclerotic risk and bleeding risk (including intracranial hemorrhage). Because fattori di rischio for ischemic events overlap heavily with risk factors for bleeding, raising baseline cardiovascular risk does not automatically tip the balance toward net benefit. Aggressive control of pressione sanguigna and tobacco use is both a safer and a more effective first priority than initiating aspirin. ^[2,17]

6. Advanced risk stratification: coronary artery calcium

Because population risk equations imperfectly identify who will actually benefit, coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring has been studied as a tool to allocate primary-prevention aspirin to those most likely to gain. In analyses of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), restricted to aspirin-naïve adults under 70 not at high bleeding risk, the relationship between the 5-year number-needed-to-treat (NNT₅) and number-needed-to-harm (NNH₅) shifted favorably as CAC rose. Overall the NNT₅ (476) exceeded the NNH₅ (355); for CAC ≥100 the NNT₅ (140) fell below the NNH₅ (518), indicating a modeled net benefit; and for CAC = 0 the NNT₅ (1,190) far exceeded the NNH₅ (567), indicating a modeled net harm. ^[12,13]

These are modeled estimates derived from observational data, not results from randomized allocation of aspirin by CAC. The 2019 ACC/AHA primary-prevention guideline treats CAC as a risk-enhancing tool to refine risk assessment rather than as a validated test for selecting aspirin therapy; no randomized trial has yet shown that allocating aspirin by CAC improves outcomes. The estimates below should therefore inform shared decision-making, not replace it. ^[17,12]

Table 1. CAC-guided modeled estimates of aspirin benefit versus harm in primary prevention (MESA; aspirin-naïve adults <70 years, not at high bleeding risk). Modeling assumed a 12% relative reduction in CVD events and a 42% relative increase in major bleeding; figures are observational estimates, not randomized evidence. NNT₅/NNH₅ = 5-year number needed to treat / to harm.

CAC stratum	5-year NNT₅ (prevent 1 CVD event)	5-year NNH₅ (cause 1 major bleed)	Modeled net effect
Overall cohort	476	355	Modeled harm ≥ benefit
CAC = 0	1,190	567	Modeled net harm — avoid
CAC ≥ 100	140	518	Modeled net benefit (no RCT)

CAC therefore offers a more personalized basis for refining risk than scores alone: a score of zero identifies people in whom bleeding risk likely dominates, while a high score identifies subclinical carico di placca in which aspirin may be biologically justified, provided bleeding risk is low. These remain modeled inferences pending randomized confirmation. An ultrasound-based carotid placca score has been studied for the same purpose, with the presence of carotid plaque at higher estimated ASCVD risk marking a more favorable balance. ^[20]

7. Family history of premature coronary disease

A family history of malattia coronarica precoce (a first-degree male relative affected before 55 or female relative before 65) is recognized in the 2019 ACC/AHA primary-prevention guideline as a risk-enhancing factor that can refine risk assessment. It can meaningfully reclassify an individual’s estimated risk upward, and a strong family history may appropriately prompt further assessment—such as CAC testing—to clarify whether preventive intensification is warranted. It is not, however, an established stand-alone indication for primary-prevention aspirin, and it does not reduce aspirin’s bleeding hazard. The appropriate response to a strong family history is intensified guideline-directed prevention—lipid management, blood-pressure control, and lifestyle measures—rather than reflexive aspirin initiation. ^[17,1]

8. Complementary and alternative preventive strategies

In the modern primary-prevention era, several interventions offer a more favorable benefit–risk profile than aspirin. Statin therapy substantially reduces major cardiovascular events without increasing major hemorrhage, and serious adverse effects such as rhabdomyolysis are rare. Strict blood-pressure control reduces stroke and myocardial infarction without raising bleeding risk—and directly lowers the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Smoking cessation produces large, rapid reductions in cardiovascular risk. ^[17]

These alternatives also reshape the case for aspirin itself. As background statin use and risk-factor control reduce residual ischemic risk, the incremental absolute benefit of adding aspirin in primary prevention shrinks while its bleeding risk persists. For most people without established disease who are already on guideline-directed therapy, adding aspirin offers little net advantage. ^[2,17]

9. Quantitative benefit and harm

The tables below summarize effect estimates from the principal peer-reviewed sources. Relative effects are broadly similar across settings; the decisive difference is in absolute effect, which is governed by baseline risk. All figures are drawn directly from the cited trials and meta-analyses.

Table 2. Aspirin effects by prevention setting and population, from primary peer-reviewed sources. RR = rate/relative ratio; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Setting / population	Effect (95% CI)	Outcome and absolute effect	Source
Primary prevention — serious vascular events	RR 0.88 (0.82–0.94)	0.51% vs 0.57% per year; ≈12% proportional reduction	ATT meta-analysis
Primary prevention — major coronary events	RR 0.82 (0.75–0.90)	≈18% proportional reduction	ATT meta-analysis
Primary prevention — stroke (total)	RR 0.95 (0.85–1.06)	No significant effect	ATT meta-analysis
Primary prevention — major extracranial bleeding	RR 1.54 (1.30–1.82)	0.10% vs 0.07% per year; significant increase	ATT meta-analysis
Primary prevention in diabetes — serious vascular events	RR 0.88 (0.79–0.97)	8.5% vs 9.6%; ARR ≈1.1%; NNT ≈91	ASCEND
Primary prevention in diabetes — major bleeding	RR 1.29 (1.09–1.52)	4.1% vs 3.2%; ARI ≈0.9%; NNH ≈112	ASCEND
Primary prevention in older adults — CVD	HR 0.95 (0.83–1.08)	10.7 vs 11.3 / 1,000 py; not significant	ASPREE
Primary prevention in older adults — major hemorrhage	HR 1.38 (1.18–1.62)	8.6 vs 6.2 / 1,000 py; significant increase	ASPREE
Secondary prevention — serious vascular events	≈one-fifth proportional reduction	≈6.7% vs 8.2% per year; large absolute benefit	ATT meta-analysis

Table 3. Maintenance-dose comparison (81 mg vs 325 mg daily) in secondary prevention.

Outcome	81 mg	325 mg	Effect (95% CI)
Composite: death, MI, or stroke hospitalization	7.28%	7.51%	HR 1.02 (0.91–1.14)
Hospitalization for major bleeding	—	—	HR 1.18 (0.79–1.77)
Switched to the other dose (crossover)	≈7%	≈41%	Asymmetric — biases toward null

Source: ADAPTABLE. The marked asymmetric crossover is the key limitation and is why the trial supports 81 mg as preferred without proving exact dose equivalence. ^[9]

10. Summary of recommendations by population

The table below states, for each population, the action (initiate, continue, or avoid) together with its setting and the supporting guidance. Every row preserves the primary-versus-secondary distinction.

Population	Action	Rationale	Guidance
Established ASCVD / post-MI / post-stroke / post-PCI or CABG (secondary prevention)	Continue (81 mg daily)	High recurrent-event risk; absolute benefit far exceeds bleeding risk	2023 AHA/ACC CCD (Class 1, LOE A); ATT; ADAPTABLE
Primary prevention, age 40–59, 10-yr CVD risk ≥10%, low bleeding risk	Individualize	Small net benefit; depends on personal risk and preference	USPSTF Grade C
Primary prevention, age ≥60	Do not initiate	No net benefit; bleeding risk dominates	USPSTF Grade D
Primary prevention with elevated bleeding risk (any age)	Do not initiate	Bleeding hazard outweighs any ischemic benefit	USPSTF; ACC/AHA
Primary prevention, CAC = 0	Avoid	Modeled net harm; very low ischemic risk (observational estimate)	MESA modeling
Primary prevention, CAC ≥100, low bleeding risk	Consider	Modeled net benefit (NNT₅ < NNH₅); no randomized confirmation	MESA modeling
Primary prevention in diabetes, no ASCVD	Individualize	Benefit and bleeding excess closely matched	ASCEND; ADA/guidelines

11. Synthesis: key questions

Who benefits most?

People with established cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention). Their high recurrent-event risk means the absolute benefit of low-dose aspirin clearly exceeds bleeding risk. Low-dose aspirin (81 mg daily) is standard long-term therapy for most secondary-prevention patients unless contraindicated or superseded by an alternative antithrombotic strategy—for example, oral anticoagulation for another indication, or a defined dual-antiplatelet course after recent stenting or acute coronary syndrome. ^[2,9,21]

Who benefits least?

Adults without cardiovascular disease who are already on guideline-directed prevention (effective statin therapy, blood-pressure control, non-smoking). Their residual ischemic risk is low, so added aspirin offers little incremental benefit while bleeding risk remains. ^[2,17]

Which populations should generally avoid initiating primary-prevention aspirin?

Adults aged 60 or older; adults of any age at increased bleeding risk; people with CAC of zero; and, on current evidence, those at the low end of body weight in whom harm signals have been raised. ^[1,12,11]

What is the lowest effective maintenance dose?

A daily dose of about 75–81 mg provides near-maximal platelet inhibition and comparable clinical protection to higher doses, with less gastrointestinal and bleeding toxicity. ^[3,9]

Is daily dosing better than alternate-day dosing?

Yes. Daily low-dose aspirin gives more consistent platelet inhibition than alternate-day dosing, because newly formed platelets restore thromboxane capacity during off-day intervals. ^[15,18]

Do doses above ~100 mg add cardiovascular benefit?

No consistent evidence demonstrates superior cardiovascular outcomes with routine maintenance doses above roughly 100 mg, while higher doses are associated with greater gastrointestinal toxicity. Higher single doses remain appropriate only for acute loading in acute coronary syndromes or acute stroke. ^[9,10,22]

What is the overall 2025-and-beyond consensus?

For secondary prevention, low-dose aspirin remains a cornerstone: the 2023 AHA/ACC Chronic Coronary Disease guideline gives low-dose aspirin (75–100 mg) a Class 1 recommendation as single-antiplatelet therapy in patients not on anticoagulation, and the 2025 ACC/AHA acute coronary syndromes guideline likewise endorses 75–100 mg maintenance dosing. For primary prevention, routine use has been abandoned; any decision should be individualized, generally limited to adults 40–59 at ≥10% 10-year risk with low bleeding risk, and is well suited to refinement with imaging-based risk markers such as CAC. ^[1,21,22]

12. Plain-language summary

Aspirin makes platelets—the blood cells that form clots—less able to stick together, which lowers the chance of a clot blocking an artery and causing a infarto or stroke. Because platelets cannot repair themselves, one low dose keeps working for about 7–10 days. The same effect makes bleeding harder to stop, which is why aspirin can cause bleeding in the stomach, intestines, or brain.

The key idea is that aspirin’s value depends on whether you already have heart or vascular disease:

• If you have already had a heart attack, stroke, stent, or bypass (secondary prevention), the chance of another event is high, and daily low-dose aspirin clearly does more good than harm. Do not stop it on your own.
• If you have no history of heart or vascular disease (primary prevention), the benefit is much smaller and is largely cancelled out by bleeding risk. Guidelines advise against starting aspirin at age 60 or older, and only individualized consideration for adults 40–59 at higher risk.

Tools such as a coronary calcium scan can help identify who in the primary-prevention group might still benefit. For preventing a first heart attack or stroke, statins and blood-pressure control generally provide greater and safer protection than aspirin.

Table 4. Plain-language summary of who benefits and who should be cautious.

Aspirin generally helps	Aspirin is usually not advised (for prevention)
Prior heart attack	Starting aspirin at age 60 or older
Prior ischemic stroke or TIA	Increased bleeding risk (ulcers, anticoagulants, etc.)
Coronary stent or chirurgia di bypass	No heart disease and a coronary punteggio di calcio of zero
High plaque burden (CAC ≥100) with low bleeding risk	Already well-protected on statin, blood-pressure control, non-smoking

Preferred maintenance dose when aspirin is indicated: 81 mg once daily.

13. Limitations and evidence quality

The primary-prevention estimates rest on trials conducted across different eras and risk profiles; contemporary background therapy (statins, better blood-pressure control) tends to reduce the residual benefit of aspirin relative to older trials. The dose-comparison evidence (ADAPTABLE) is open-label with substantial crossover, so it constrains rather than proves dose equivalence. Weight-based dosing and twice-daily strategies are supported mainly by pharmacodynamic and post-hoc data and have not been validated in dedicated outcome trials. CAC-based allocation rests on observational modeling rather than randomized allocation. These limitations argue for individualized, clinician-guided decisions rather than blanket rules. ^[9,11,12]

14. Disclaimer

This document is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, nor does it establish a clinician–patient relationship. Individual ischemic and bleeding risks, medications, and comorbidities vary widely. Any decision to start, continue, change, or stop aspirin should be made together with a qualified healthcare professional.

Riferimenti

1. US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson KW, Barry MJ, et al. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-1584. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.4983
2. Antithrombotic Trialists’ (ATT) Collaboration, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1849-1860. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60503-1
3. Awtry EH, Loscalzo J. Aspirin. Circulation. 2000;101(10):1206-1218. doi:10.1161/01.cir.101.10.1206
4. Patrono C, García Rodríguez LA, Landolfi R, Baigent C. Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of atherothrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(22):2373-2383. doi:10.1056/NEJMra052717
5. McNeil JJ, Wolfe R, Woods RL, et al. Effect of Aspirin on Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding in the Healthy Elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1509-1518. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1805819
6. McNeil JJ, Woods RL, Nelson MR, et al. Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1499-1508. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800722
7. McNeil JJ, Nelson MR, Woods RL, et al. Effect of Aspirin on All-Cause Mortality in the Healthy Elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1519-1528. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1803955
8. ASCEND Study Collaborative Group, Bowman L, Mafham M, et al. Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1529-1539. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1804988
9. Jones WS, Mulder H, Wruck LM, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(21):1981-1990. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2102137
10. CURRENT-OASIS 7 Investigators, Mehta SR, Bassand JP, et al. Dose comparisons of clopidogrel and aspirin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):930-942. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0909475
11. Rothwell PM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to bodyweight and dose: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2018;392(10145):387-399. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31133-4
12. Cainzos-Achirica M, Miedema MD, McEvoy JW, et al. Coronary Artery Calcium for Personalized Allocation of Aspirin in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in 2019: The MESA Study (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). Circulation. 2020;141(19):1541-1553. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045010
13. Miedema MD, Duprez DA, Misialek JR, et al. Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: estimates from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(3):453-460. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000690
14. Steering Committee of the Physicians’ Health Study Research Group. Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing Physicians’ Health Study. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(3):129-135. doi:10.1056/NEJM198907203210301
15. Ridker PM, Cook NR, Lee IM, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(13):1293-1304. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050613
16. Gaziano JM, Brotons C, Coppolecchia R, et al. Use of aspirin to reduce risk of initial vascular events in patients at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (ARRIVE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1036-1046. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31924-X
17. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;140(11):e596-e646. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678
18. Swaim L, Hillman RS. Aspirin administered to women at 100 mg every other day produces less platelet inhibition than aspirin administered at 81 mg per day: implications for interpreting the women’s health study. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2009;28(1):94-100. doi:10.1007/s11239-008-0262-6
19. Feldman M, Cryer B, Rushin K, Betancourt J. A comparison of every-third-day versus daily low-dose aspirin therapy on serum thromboxane concentrations in healthy men and women. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2001;7(1):53-57. doi:10.1177/107602960100700111
20. Dzaye O, Razavi AC, Dardari ZA, et al. Carotid Ultrasound-Based Plaque Score for the Allocation of Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13(12):e034718. doi:10.1161/JAHA.123.034718
21. Virani SS, Newby LK, Arnold SV, et al. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2023;148(9):e9-e119. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001168
22. Rao SV, O’Donoghue ML, Ruel M, et al. 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2025;151(13):e771-e862. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001309
23. Patrono C. The Multifaceted Clinical Readouts of Platelet Inhibition by Low-Dose Aspirin. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(1):74-85. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.012