CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2728 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Perioperative aspirin,
does it really help with Prevention of 30-day death or nonfatal myocardial infarction?

30-Second Summary
D
Evidence Grade D · 34 · Safety warning
Routine perioperative aspirin did not reduce death or myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding
Major bleeding increased from 3.8% to 4.6%, hazard ratio 1.23 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.49). Patients with high-risk indications should not start or stop aspirin without clinical coordination.
What the
research shows
The grade is D with 34 points. POISE-2 assigned 10,010 patients to aspirin, 4,998, or placebo, 5,012. Death or nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 7.0% versus 7.1%, hazard ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; P=.92), while major bleeding increased to 4.6% versus 3.8%, hazard ratio 1.23 (1.01 to 1.49; P=.04).
What the
ads claim
This does not mean aspirin should be stopped for a recent coronary stent or another separate high-risk indication. The verdict is limited to routine perioperative prevention around noncardiac surgery.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • POISE-2 evaluated aspirin and clonidine separately in a 2-by-2 factorial design.
  • The aspirin comparison is registered as NCT01082874.
  • Aspirin began at 200 mg two to four hours before surgery, followed by 100 mg daily.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2728 · D 34
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

POISE-2 was an international placebo-controlled 2-by-2 factorial trial; this verdict isolates 4,998 aspirin versus 5,012 placebo patients and does not mix clonidine outcomes. Canadian, Australian, and Spanish public grants were combined with aspirin supplied by Bayer and clonidine plus some funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. Industry support affected funding independence only. Axis 6 B0 evidence ① Allocation concealment: "Randomization was performed in fixed blocks with the use of a computerized interactive Web-based randomization system, with stratification according to center and status with respect to long-term aspirin therapy." ② Masking: "Patients, health care providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were unaware of the study-group assignments." ③ Analysis population and missing data: "We will analyze patients in the treatment group to which they are allocated, according to the intention-to-treat principle."; "The 30-day follow-up was complete for 99.9% of the participants." ④ Prespecified primary outcome: "The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days." — matches registration NCT01082874

02

Why this is classified as D (34)

A well-conducted 10,010-patient hard-outcome trial found no benefit and increased major bleeding, but repeated independent refutation is absent, giving D with 34 points.

Counterpoint. Stent timing, coronary risk, surgical bleeding risk, and the existing indication require individualized specialist decisions.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked the NEJM report, protocol, and NCT01082874 for factorial design, central web randomization, intention-to-treat analysis, 99.9% follow-up, prespecified outcome, mixed funding, and bleeding

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE-Harm increased in the trials
PrecisionC0The confidence interval leaves room for benefit

The scoring table and the verdict agree (D).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Prevention of 30-day death or nonfatal myocardial infarctionDRates were 7.0% versus 7.1%, with no benefit.
Aspirin for a recent stent or another separate indication?This is outside the graded question.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1International double-blind placebo-controlled 2-by-2 factorial randomized trial9Canadian, Australian, and Spanish public grants plus Bayer study drug and some Boehringer Ingelheim fundingDeath or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days7.0% versus 7.1%, HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.15); major bleeding 4.6% versus 3.8%, HR 1.23 (1.01 to 1.49)Large hard-outcome null trial with harm
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, et al.; POISE-2 Investigators. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494-1503. PMID: 24679062. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1401105. NCT01082874.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Perioperative aspirin x vascular complications after noncardiac surgery Evidence Grade D card
[Chamgap] Perioperative aspirin x vascular complications after noncardiac surgery — Evidence Grade D·34. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/heart/perioperative-aspirin-noncardiac-surgery-vascular-complications/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.