Aspirin every day - good for anybody?

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Steve, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    I'm male, age 55, never had a heart attack, and have none of
    the risk factors. But my internist still recommends that I
    take a baby aspirin every day. Is this one of those "can't
    hurt, might help" situations? Is there evidence that any
    person over X age can benefit from taking aspirin every day?
     
    Tags:


  2. listener

    listener Guest

    On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:51:41 -0800, Steve <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I'm male, age 55, never had a heart attack, and have none
    >of the risk factors. But my internist still recommends
    >that I take a baby aspirin every day. Is this one of those
    >"can't hurt, might help" situations? Is there evidence
    >that any person over X age can benefit from taking aspirin
    >every day?

    There have been many studies that show cardiovascular
    benefit of aspirin in primary prevention, but that has to be
    weighed against possible increased bleeding complications

    For example:

    http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/265?-
    maxtoshow=

    L.
     
  3. George

    George Guest

    >http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/265?maxtoshow=
    >
    >
    I don't understand what they mean by the risk factors >1.5%
    ASA is recommended but risk 1% or less it is not. Could this
    be explained in layman's terms?

    Plus there was a study about a year ago showing uncoated ASA
    to provide the statistical benefit that had been previously
    reported, but that enteric coated ASA was surprisingly
    ineffective. Anything more recent on this?

    My family doctor is in the dark on this one and is still
    recommending enteric ASA. I discussed this with a gastro
    surgeon and he was non committal. He said the risk of
    stomach ulcers increases with uncoated, but the protection
    from heart attack is also better. he seemed to imply that if
    you could tolerate uncoated it might be better, but as I
    said he was non committal.

    I switched back to uncoated 325mg after that but have always
    wondered if there was any consensus on this matter.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > >
    > >http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/2-
    > >65?maxtoshow=
    > >
    > >
    > I don't understand what they mean by the risk factors
    > >1.5% ASA is recommended but risk 1% or less it is not.
    > Could this be explained in layman's terms?

    I think what they mean is that if you have a risk of greater
    than 1.5%/year of having an MI than you should take ASA and
    less than 1% than you should not. (Whether this is correct
    or not, I don't know.) The risk is based on the typical risk
    factors - LDL, age, previous MI, etc. I'm not sure what
    procedure they used to quantify it.

    Bill

    >
    > Plus there was a study about a year ago showing uncoated
    > ASA to provide the statistical benefit that had been
    > previously reported, but that enteric coated ASA was
    > surprisingly ineffective. Anything more recent on this?
    >
    > My family doctor is in the dark on this one and is still
    > recommending enteric ASA. I discussed this with a gastro
    > surgeon and he was non committal. He said the risk of
    > stomach ulcers increases with uncoated, but the protection
    > from heart attack is also better. he seemed to imply that
    > if you could tolerate uncoated it might be better, but as
    > I said he was non committal.
    >
    > I switched back to uncoated 325mg after that but have
    > always wondered if there was any consensus on this matter.
     
Loading...