More efficacious, equally safe: a meta-analysis comparing the safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus aspirin
Whether aspirin carries a favorable safety profile compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains a topic of controversy. A recent study by Hsu et al. illustrates how providers often preferentially choose aspirin for patients they perceive to be at high risk of bleeding, noting that over 38% of patients who qualify for additional anticoagulation per guidelines are actually managed on aspirin alone in real life practice .
Past investigations comparing the safety profile of aspirin against warfarin reveal no observable difference in bleeding events . In turn, DOACs have been shown to be consistently safer than warfarin, with pooled analysis demonstrating decreased rates of total bleeding, major bleeding, and fatal bleeding . However, data directly comparing the safety and efficacy of aspirin against DOACs has been sparse until recently.
The 2017 publication of the EINSTEIN CHOICE trial marked only the second large randomized controlled trial comparing aspirin to...
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Research involving human and animal participants
No animals were used in this study. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Mant J, Hobbs FR, Fletcher K et al (2007) Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 370:493–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61233-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS et al (2014) 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 130:2071–2104. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar