Abstract
Secondary prevention of patients with chronic coronary syndrome is based on the long-term use of a single anti-aggregating drug which is traditionally represented by acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in light of the results of studies and meta-analyses which have demonstrated a clear anti-ischaemic efficacy against of an acceptable increase in the risk of bleeding, especially intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding. The availability of drugs such as clopidogrel, which inhibits platelet activity through the P2Y12 receptor pathway, has called into question this paradigm, also in consideration of the fact that the scientific evidence that supports the use of ASA in secondary prevention is based on dated studies with some limitations. Over the last few years, randomized trials have demonstrated how clopidogrel has an efficacy profile comparable to that of ASA and a safety profile that is sometimes even better. In light of the new evidence, it is therefore legitimate to ask whether in this clinical scenario, ASA should still be considered the drug of choice or whether clopidogrel could represent the preferable alternative.