Combined Aspirin–Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Compared With Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Alone Among Patients at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For patients receiving oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, deciding whether to add aspirin to their treatment is a common clinical scenario with no clear guidelines to aid practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing these 2 treatment strategies (combined aspirin-OAC therapy vs OAC therapy alone) to assess the therapeutic benefits and risks. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials published up to June 2005 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials with at least 3 months of follow-up that compared aspirin-OAC therapy with OAC therapy alone, in which OAC was administered to achieve the same target international normalized ratio or was given at the same fixed dose in both treatment arms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for study outcomes in patients receiving aspirin-OAC therapy and OAC therapy alone. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were included, totaling 4180 patients. The risk for arterial thromboembolism was lower in patients receiving combined aspirin-OAC therapy compared with OAC therapy alone (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84). However, these benefits were limited to patients with a mechanical heart valve (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.49). There was no difference in the risk for arterial thromboembolism with these treatments in patients with atrial fibrillation (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.47-2.07) or coronary artery disease (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.35-1.36). There was no difference in all-cause mortality with either treatment (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.25). The risk for major bleeding was higher in patients receiving aspirin-OAC therapy compared with OAC therapy alone (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.02). CONCLUSION: Our findings question the current practice of using combined aspirin-OAC therapy except in patients with a mechanical heart valve, given the questionable benefits in reducing thromboembolic events and the increased risk of major bleeding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".