Skip to main content
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

The impact of long-term aspirin use on the patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty



Although aspirin is increasingly utilized to reduce the event of severe perioperative complications, the effect of long-term aspirin use (L-AU) on perioperative complications in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty (SA) has not been well studied. The goal of the present study is to identify the influence of L-AU on perioperative complications in individuals undergoing SA.


We selected data from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2010 and 2019, to identify adult patients with SA. Patients were subsequently categorized into L-AU and whole non-L-AU cohorts according to the presence of aspirin use. The demographic and comorbidity characteristics were matched using propensity score matching (PSM). The Pearson chi-square test, Wilcoxon rank test and logistic regression were utilized to assess the association of L-AU with perioperative complications.


From 2010 to 2019, a total of 162,418 SA patients satisfied the inclusion criteria, with 22,659 (13.95%) using aspirin on a long-term basis. The vast majority of the patients with pre-existing L-AU were aged 65–74 years, female, White and had Medicare insurance. L-AU before surgery was linked to increased risks of perioperative complications, such as blood transfusion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.339), genitourinary disease (aOR: 1.349), acute renal failure (aOR: 1.292), acute myocardial infarction (aOR: 1.494), higher total charge (L-AU vs. the whole non-L-AU vs. matched non-L-AU: $66,727.15 vs. $59,697.08 vs. $59,926.32), and prolonged hospitalization stay (LOS) (aOR: 0.837). However, L-AU was considered a protective factor of acute cerebrovascular disease (aOR: 0.722) and stroke (aOR: 0.725).


Our study is based on the largest open-access all-payer inpatient database, revealing a noteworthy finding of aspirin's protective and adverse impact on different postoperative complications in the US population, such as acute cardiovascular disease, and stroke, etc. Further studies assessing the optimum preoperative aspirin duration and dosage to meet the best benefit quantity for patients with planned joint arthroplasties are suggested.


Shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is a recognized cost-effective method for treating various degenerative and traumatic shoulder joint diseases, with a dramatically increasing incidence from 16.70% in 2011 to 32.60% in 2017 among 100,000 people in the USA per year [1]. With the significant increase in the popularity of shoulder replacement surgery in the USA over the past decade [2], aspirin, as an inexpensive, generic, and widely available antiplatelet drug, has been widely used in SA patients in order to reduce the event of severe perioperative complications [3, 4], such as fever remission, deep-vein thrombosis, stroke, fatal pulmonary embolism, inflammation control, postoperative pain, blood transfusion, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal complication, and genitourinary disease, etc. Particularly, accumulative evidence has demonstrated that existing long-term aspirin use (L-AU) could inhibit the aggregation of platelets, and by preventing thrombus formation, the perioperative administration of L-AU may significantly prevent serious vascular complications [5, 6]. However, L-AU poses an increased risk of bleeding among patients undergoing surgeries because of its inhibition to platelet function, although this risk appears to be small [7]. But Mangano et al. report that after coronary bypass surgery, taking aspirin early is safe and is linked to lower mortality rates and ischemic complications including the gastrointestinal tract, brain, heart, and kidneys [8]. Obviously, it is challenging and essential to balance L-AU’s positive and negative impacts on the risk of joint perioperative complications.

Taking the enormous benefits provided with aspirin into account, the popularity and prevalence of regular use of aspirin in the USA has been constantly and tremendously increasing [9]. In fact, patients were advised to stop taking aspirin several days (ranging from 2 to 10 days) before elective cardiac surgery by Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC), and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), primarily because of worries about perioperative bleeding [10]. Furthermore, forty-five years later, aspirin was recommended to prevent venous thromboembolism after orthopedic surgery by the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians [4]. Additionally, a recent randomized controlled trial by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) shows that in patients with limb fractures who have undergone surgical treatment or pelvic or acetabular fractures, using aspirin to prevent thrombosis can reduce the incidence of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, as well as reduce the 90-day mortality rate [11]. Therefore, it could be confirmed to a certain degree that a pre-existing aspirin use should be clinically meaningful, partly exerting a prophylactic impact on protecting patients from perioperative adverse events. However, to our knowledge, at present, there is no comprehensive study based on large-scale national database analysis, especially on the incidence rate and perioperative complications of L-AU patients after SA.

Considering the above situation, the purpose of this study is to investigate impact of long-term aspirin use on patient undergoing SA based on a national inpatient sample (NIS). Particularly, this study was attempting to determine the prevalence of L-AU after SA. Moreover, another hypothesis was proposed to identify patient groups who can benefit from preoperative optimization by perioperative risk factors. The incidence, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), type of payer, total charges, length of stay (LOS), patients’ demographics, comorbidities, risk factors, and perioperative complications of L-AU following SA were investigated.

Materials and methods

Data source

Data were utilized from the 2010–2019 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [12]. As the largest public fully paid inpatient observation database in the USA, this database consists of 20.00% of all discharged patients in the USA, and has approximately 8 million acute inpatients from 1050 hospitals in 44 states every year [13], representing approximately 90.00% of non-profit academic medical centers nationwide [14].

Study cohort

There were 72,950,400 subjects in the NIS from 2010 to 2019. 189,695 Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty were identified based on the procedure codes from International Classification of Disease Clinical Modification version 9 (ICD-9-CM) and the procedure codes from International Classification of Disease Clinical Modification version 10 (ICD-10-CM), (ICD-9 code: 81.80, 81.81, 81.88, 81.97; ICD-10 code: 0RRJ00Z, 0RRJ07Z, 0RRJ0J6, 0RRJ0J7, 0RRJ0JZ, 0RRJ0KZ, 0RRK00Z, 0RRK07Z, 0RRK0J6, 0RRK0J7, 0RRK0JZ, 0RRK0KZ). Out of the extracted dataset of SA patients from 2010 to 2019, 15,842 patients who were under the age of 18 or were hospitalized without selectivity were discarded from the study cohorts. Besides, in order to prevent the interference caused by other antithrombotic drugs, 10,846 patients were excluded with the prolonged use of anticoagulants (ICD-9 code: V58.61; ICD-10 code: Z79.01) or prolonged usage of other antiplatelet drugs (ICD-9 code: V58.63; ICD-10 code: Z79.02). To reduce confusion bias, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed on baseline features, 16 L-AU patients were removed because eligible requirements were not attained (caliper value: 0.01; abandoned rate: 0.05%). Eventually, the final 162,402 patients were divided into two groups: the L-AU cohort (22,643, ICD-9 code: V58.66; ICD-10 code: Z79.82) and non-L-AU cohort (139,759) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Analysis plan

We evaluated patient and hospital-level characteristics that may affect postoperative morbidity for each cohort. Patients’ characteristics inherently included gender, age subgroups, age, race, pay type, number of comorbidities according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and 29 pre-existing Exlixhauser comorbidities. Hospital characteristics included hospital bed size, hospital teaching status, and hospital location. All the above variables were enrolled in the 1:1 PSM. 16 comorbidity conditions were selected and given a numerical score based on the age-adjusted CCI, and higher score means more comorbidities [15]. Comorbidity conditions and their point values included age (age 41–50 yrs. = 1, age 51–60 yrs. = 2, age 61–70 yrs. = 3, age 71 yrs. = 4), peptic ulcer disease (1), congestive heart failure (1), peripheral vascular disorders (1), other neurological disorders (1), diabetes without complications (1), rheumatoid arthritis/collagen vascular diseases (1), chronic pulmonary disease (1), renal disease (2), diabetes with complications (2), liver disease (2), psychosis (2), solid tumor without metastasis (2), lymphoma (2),  paralysis  (2), AIDS/HIV (2), and metastatic cancer (2) (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic and comorbidities characteristic of study cohorts


Perioperative complications after shoulder arthroplasty were searched from the database and the detailed items are listed (Table 2). ICD-9 diagnosis codes and ICD-10 diagnosis codes (Additional file 1) were used to identify any complication, blood transfusion, periprosthetic joint infection, dislocation of prosthetic joint, hemorrhage/seroma/hematoma, urinary tract infection, acute renal failure, thrombocytopenia, acute postoperative pain, respiratory disease, genitourinary disease, pneumonia, gastrointestinal complication, convulsion, deep venous thrombosis, wound infection, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, postoperative delirium, septicemia, acute cerebrovascular disease, cardiac arrest, postoperative shock, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, and death. In addition, “any complication” was defined as the patient having at least one complication. When patients were in pain within the initial 72 h after surgery, acute postoperative pain was recorded. As NIS collected inpatient databases, the term "perioperative" specifically applied to the period from patients’ hospitalization to discharge in our study. Finally, the total cost and length of stay (LOS) during the hospitalization were used to quantify resource consumption. Only when the total cost and the length of stay (LOS) outrun 75.00%, respectively, were they considered to be prolonged stays and higher costs.

Table 2 Perioperative complications

Statistical analysis

The overall occurrence of L-AU among patients undergoing SA in the USA from 2010 to 2019 was calculated in the National Inpatient Sample database (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The annual popularity of pre-existing long-term aspirin use in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty between 2010 and 2019 in the United States

In order to test the independent influence of L-AU on perioperative complications and avoid the deviation between non-L-AU and L-AU cohorts, we conducted a 1:1 PSM cohort analysis to match the demographics and comorbidity characteristics of patients between non-L-AU and L-AU cohorts (Table 1). The matching caliper value in PSM is 0.01, and the confounding factors for matching include age, age subgroup, race, gender, hospital teaching status, bed size, hospital location, Charlson comorbidities index subgroup, and previously existing Exlihauser comorbidities. After PSM, 22,643 matched non-L-AU and 22,643 L-AU patients (16 patients were discarded, with a rejection rate of 0.05%) were included in the following analysis. Due to all p-values above 0.050, there was no statistically significant difference in demographic and comorbidity characteristics between the L-AU and matched perioperative complications group. In addition, the standardized mean difference between L-AU and matched non-L-AU queues is less than 0.10, indicating that after PSM, no matching covariates changed their distribution (Table 1).

In order to demonstrate the statistical variance between L-AU and matched non-L-AU cohorts, Wilcoxon rank tests were performed on continuous variables and Pearson chi square tests were calculated on categorical variables. All tests were considered statistically significant, with p < 0.050. To evaluate the relationship between L-AU and perioperative complications, univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used (Tables 2 and 3). The 95% confidence intervals (CI) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated for the whole non-L-AU group and the non-L-AU group which served as the control groups. The unadjusted odds ratios (uOR) and the multivariable—adjusted odds ratios (aOR) was provided, respectively. An alpha level of p < 0.050 was used to determine statistical significance, which has been utilized by other NIS researches [16].

Table 3 Unadjusted/multivariable-adjusted odds ratios of perioperative complicationsa

No ethical approval was required because the study used a publicly accessible database. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).


Occurrence of L-AU in patients undergoing SA

162,418 patients undergoing SA were retrieved in the NIS database between 2010 and 2019. In general, there were 22,659 cases of long-term aspirin use with an average prevalence of 13.95% (22,659/162,418) (Fig. 2). Significantly, it was discovered that the annual incidence of L-AU increased yearly from 2010 to 2019 (from 6.67 to 19.18%) (Fig. 2).

Patient demographics and comorbidity characteristics among three study cohorts

Before conducting PSM at a ratio of 1:1, significant differences in demographics and comorbidity between L-AU and the entire non-L-AU cohort were observed. Long-term aspirin patients were more likely to be female, elderly, White and paid with Medicare (p < 0.001) (Table 1). L-AU patients had lower likelihood to be hospitalized in a small-bed and non-teaching hospital (p < 0.001) (Table 1). Particularly, there was a significant difference in Charlson comorbidity index between L-AU and entire non-L-AU patients, and patients with Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 accounted for the largest proportion of both L-AU and whole non-L-AU ones (the whole non-L-AU vs. matched non-L-AU vs. L-AU: 87.70% vs. 95.10% vs.94.90%), which as mentioned previously, illustrated more comorbidities (p < 0.001) (Table 1). The incidence of comorbidities in almost half of L-AU patients is significantly higher than that in whole non-L-AU patients apart from deficiency anemia, other neurological disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, coagulopathy, psychoses, chronic blood loss anemia, liver disease, alcohol abuse, lymphoma, paralysis, drug abuse, fluid and electrolyte disorders, solid tumor without metastasis, weight loss, peptic ulcer disease excluding bleeding, metastatic cancer, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (p < 0.001) (Table 1). Notably, the occurrence of uncomplicated diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, depression, renal failure, and complicated diabetes mellitus comprised a significantly higher proportion in L-AU patients in contrast to whole non-L-AU patients outrunning by 13.80%, 4.90%, 4.00%, 3.90%, 3.80%, and 2.40%, respectively (p < 0.001) (Table 1). After the PSM by 1:1 ratio, all the confounding variables in Table 1, including gender, age, age subgroups, race, the type of payer, the bed size of hospital, the location of hospital, the teaching status of hospital. 29 pre-existing Exlihauser comorbidities and Charlson comorbidity index subgroups represented no apparent difference between L-AU and matched non-L-AU cohorts as control (p > 0.050) and all between-group standardized mean differences were less than 0.100 which were considered balanced (Table 1).

Adverse effects of L-AU after SA

Noteworthy is that the majority of complications’ incidences were less than 1.00%, apart from any complication (14.10–15.90%), peripheral vascular disease (2.50–4.30%), acute postoperative pain (2.60–2.90%), genitourinary disease (2.50–2.90%), blood transfusion (2.20–2.90%), acute renal failure (1.40–1.80%), urinary tract infection (1.30–1.50%) and dislocation of prosthetic joint (1.00–1.10%) (Table 2). Compared with the whole non-L-AU ones (p < 0.010) (Table 2), patients with L-AU had an increased risk of perioperative complications, such as blood transfusion, genitourinary disease, peripheral vascular disease, acute cerebrovascular disease, stroke, and overall perioperative complications. However, L-AU patients were inclined to suffer perioperative complications such as blood transfusion, acute renal failure, genitourinary disease, acute cerebrovascular disease, and stroke (p < 0.010), in contrast to matched non-L-AU patients (Table 2).

In relation to isolated effect of L-AU, logistic regression analysis was used to identify assess the association of L-AU with perioperative complications. Between the L-AU and whole non-L-AU groups, patients with L-AU were more likely to have blood transfusion (uOR = 1.465; 95% CI = 1.322–1.632; p < 0.001), acute postoperative pain (uOR = 1.110; 95% CI = 1.020–1.207; p = 0.015), and stroke (uOR = 1.875; 95% CI = 1.605–2.190; p < 0.001), but less likely to have any complication (uOR = 0.871; 95% CI = 0.825–0.920; p < 0.001), urinary tract infection (uOR = 0.867; 95% CI = 0.765–0.982; p = 0.025), prolonged length of stay (> 75th percentile) (uOR = 0.889; 95% CI = 0.857–0.923; p < 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (uOR = 0.659; 95% CI = 0.605–0.718; p < 0.001), acute cerebrovascular disease (uOR = 0.630; 95% CI = 0.537–0.740; p < 0.001) (Table 3). Consistent with the multivariate adjusted analysis, a significant correlation was found between L-AU and blood transfusion (aOR = 1.339; 95% CI = 1.191–1.505; p < 0.001), and prolonged length of stay (> 75th percentile) (aOR = 0.837; 95% CI = 0.798–0.877; p < 0.001). While L-AU was a risk factor for acute renal failure (aOR = 1.292; 95% CI = 1.115–1.496; p < 0.001), genitourinary disease (aOR = 1.349; 95% CI = 1.209–1.506; p < 0.001), acute myocardial infarction (aOR = 1.494; 95% CI = 1.073–2.078; p = 0.017), it was noteworthy that patients with L-AU were less likely to have acute cerebrovascular disease (aOR = 0.722; 95% CI = 0.586–0.891; p < 0.002) and stroke (aOR = 0.725; 95% CI = 0.587–0.894; p = 0.003) (Table 3). Importantly, L-AU was a significant risk factor for acute renal failure (aOR = 1.292) and acute myocardial infarction (aOR = 1.494), but unadjusted ORs demonstrated no significant statistical difference contrarily (Table 3). Furthermore, adjusting OR indicates that L-AU is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative acute pain (aOR = 1.117, p = 0.054) and peripheral vascular disease (aOR = 1.063; p = 0.196), but unadjusted ORs indicate that L-AU was an important protective element (acute postoperative pain, uOR = 1.485; peripheral vascular disease, uOR = 0.659) (Table 3).

Not surprisingly, L-AU patients are typically discharged earlier compared with non-L-AU and matched non-L-AU patients (L-AU vs. the whole non-L-AU vs. matched non-L-AU: 2.03 vs. 2.07 vs. 2.10 days; p < 0.001) (Table 4). Nonetheless, the presence of L-AU resulted in a clear $7,030 increase in total hospital expenses. ($66,727.15 vs. $59,926.32 vs. $59,697.08; p < 0.001) (Table 4). Therefore, L-AU increased medical expenses. Accordingly, it was discovered that patients with L-AU were less likely to use private insurance and more likely to pay through Medicare (p < 0.001) (Table 1). Furthermore, the number of disease diagnoses (11.06 vs. 8.51 vs. 8.02) shows significant statistical difference among the three cohorts (p < 0.001) (Table 4). In this study, L-AU was a separate protective element that reduced LOS (aOR = 0.837). Nevertheless, L-AU patients often have more disease diagnoses than matched non-L-AU and whole non-L-AU patients (11.06 vs. 8.51 vs. 8.02 diagnoses), which may have contributed to their higher total cost of discharge (aOR = 0.968).

Table 4 Resource consumption


This study conducted a large-scale health economic analysis on L-AU patients after SA. To our knowledge, this is the first objective study to investigate the impact of L-AU on patients receiving SA from 2010 to 2019. In our study, the prevalence of pre-existing L-AU significantly increased from 6.70% (2010) to 19.20% (2019), indicating that effective use of aspirin is still crucial for effectively reducing the occurrence of these complications, such as arterial and venous thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute pain and even colorectal cancer and death, as recommended by prior studies [4, 17,18,19,20] (Fig. 2). Multiple factors may account for the steady rise in incidence rates from 2010 to 2019. On the one hand, the expanding proportion of elderly population (sixty-five years of age or older) patients receiving SA in the USA may have contributed to the increase [21]. In the meantime, the targeted population for primary/secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is typically the elderly, and a modest dose of aspirin is routinely recommended for individuals aged ≤ 70 years by 2019 guidelines [22, 23]. Particularly, female, advanced age, hypertension, obesity, hypothyroidism, chronic lung disease, depression, uncomplicated diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disorders, congestive heart failure, complicated diabetes mellitus, pulmonary circulatory disease, valvular disease, and renal failure were significant feature of L-AU patients in this study, consistent with the risk factors for CVD [24]. On the other hand, large amounts of aspirin have been continuously put into use, such as colorectal cancer and pre-eclampsia prevention methods proposed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [25, 26]. Overall, the previous study has revealed that aspirin can effectively prevent venous thromboembolism after both total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty [9]. Moreover, when SA patients undergo traumatic arthroplasty, aspirin’s long-term effect might continue to benefit them, while other cumulative benefits previously provided by L-AU, such as sustained reduction of the burden of oxidative stress, inflammation, and endothelial dysfunction in many aspects, may continue to benefit them.

In our study, first of all, although most L-AU patients have a higher burden of complications, the current research has proved for the first time that pre-existing L-AU will significantly increase the risk of perioperative blood transfusion, acute renal failure, genitourinary system diseases and most other perioperative complications of SA patients. The cause of blood transfusion and acute myocardial infarction may be the reduction of TXA2-dependent platelet activity, a crucial aspect of primary haemorrhage, which is the principal risk of the low-dosage aspirin therapy [27]. Among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease, observational study [28] and a meta-analysis of randomized trials [29] have illustrated that long term, low-dose aspirin treatment can double the risk of severe extracranial bleeding (mainly upper gastrointestinal bleeding). These serious bleeding complications are substantially more likely to occur in patients over the age of 70. Researchers also suggested that compared to not taking aspirin, taking aspirin almost doubles the risk of gastrointestinal and other extracranial bleeding events [30]. Therefore, before undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, a 24 h dosing interval of low-dose aspirin administration (81 mg per day) is frequently considered to be sufficient to keep TXA2-dependent platelet activation almost completely and persistently suppressed suggested by the Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) Trial [31, 32]. Notably, pre-existing L-AU also serves as a risk factor of genitourinary disease and acute renal failure, in accordance with the former study implying that the long-term use of high-dose aspirin resulted in renal papillary necrosis (RPN) and renal dysfunction [33]. Although low-dose aspirin may be suitable for women who are considered particularly susceptible to early-onset pre-eclampsia, severe enough to require premature delivery [26], previous research findings do not support routine prophylactic or therapeutic antiplatelet therapy during pregnancy for all women with increased risk of preeclampsia or intrauterine growth retardation [34], which is consistent with present study. However, according to Liang FG’s research [35], aspirin is a protective factor for acute renal failure, blood transfusion and genitourinary disease, which is totally contrary to our study. A prophylactical low dose of aspirin is recommended by 2019 ACC/ACH guidelines [22], so maybe long-term use of aspirin could lead in higher risk of bleeding. It is worth noting that renal failure incidence in L-AU patients was slightly higher than non-L-AU patients in the their study, but acute renal failure is showed to be a protective factor, which seems contradictory in their study. Also, their surgical methods for different parts, latest time range and ICD-10 diagnosis methods may mainly contribute to the different outcomes.

In the present study, however, it is worthy of noting that the incidence of acute cerebrovascular disease and stroke in L-AU patients is marginally lower than that in non-L-AU patients. When cyclooxygenase-1 is blocked for a long time, many defense performances of L-AU are caused by various physiological changes, and its advantages may be beneficial results [4]. In brief, the effect of aspirin depends on the inhibition of cox enzyme, a component of the arachidonic acid metabolism pathway that catalyzes the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandin H2 and subsequently produces thromboxane A2 (TXA2) and prostaglandin I2 (PGI2). While PGI2 promotes vasodilation and the suppression of platelet aggregation, TXA2 causes vasoconstriction. Aspirin is thought to have a protective effect against vascular diseases because it mainly affects the acetylation of serine residues in the cox channel and blocks the entry of substrates into the catalytic sites of enzymes in megakaryocytes. Therefore, aspirin can affect the aggregation characteristics of newly generated platelets [36]. The antiplatelet effect of aspirin lasts for 7 to 10 days in line with the lifespan of new platelets. In addition, as our study has shown, reduced length of stays was also one of the advantages of L-AU, consistent with the previous NIS database analysis study [35].

Second, by blocking prostaglandin synthesis and sensitization of pain receptors, aspirin can be used as an analgesic [20], and it has been demonstrated to be beneficial for severe postoperative pain. Contrary to expectations, our research results indicate that compared to the entire non-L-AU group, L-AU patients have a higher risk of acute postoperative pain, so pre-existing L-AU may reduce patients' tolerance to postoperative pain who underwent total knee arthroplasty. Although there have been few previous studies describing this phenomenon, rodent models of inflammatory pain have shown that low-dose aspirin can alleviate escape or avoidance behavior, but cannot alleviate mechanical hyperalgesia [37]. Therefore, we reckon that low-dose aspirin's long-term anti-inflammatory impact may result in hyperalgesia and the increase of pain sensitivity. Further studies should be performed to explore the potential mechanisms and comprehend this phenomenon.

Third, the balance between the potential risk of bleeding and the expected benefits of aspirin remains a focus of clinical attention [27]. Studies have shown that low-dose aspirin has a lower risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding episodes and non-gastrointestinal bleeding episodes (intracranial hemorrhage and hemorrhagic stroke) [28]. Although our study reveals that, from 2010 to 2019, pre-existing L-AU had no association with GI bleeding, thrombocytopenia, or hemorrhage/seroma/hematoma, L-AU was a significant risk factor for blood transfusion. This may be due to the potential bleeding risk caused by the inhibition of platelet aggregation by aspirin, and routine preoperative discontinuation of aspirin is not safe enough for rapid recovery of coagulation function in patients. Consequently, compared to whole non-L-AU patients, the risk of bleeding was at least greater in L-AU patients, which serves as a reminder for the future research to find a safe and appropriate aspirin dose for long-term use.

Fourth, L-AU was identified as a significant and advantageous factor of a shorter length of stay in the present study, despite of the fact that the results indicated that SA patients with L-AU usually have greater disease burden, so they use more medical resources. Similarly, Wayangankar’s study also illustrated that aspirin can shorten hospital stay in patients undergoing Femoral artery transcatheter aortic valve replacement [38].

In summary, pre-existing L-AU is shown to be a significant risk factor for blood transfusion, acute renal failure, genitourinary disease, and acute myocardial infarction. Contrariwise, it serves as a protective factor for acute cerebrovascular disease and stroke. Although there is a risk of bleeding, the pre-accumulated benefits of aspirin may still reduce the risk of perioperative complications and hospital resource consumption. Consequently, the present study proposes an evidence-deficient but justifiable hypothesis that if patients who plan to have surgery in the future can take the best and appropriate dose of aspirin in sufficient time, long-term use of aspirin can better prevent perioperative complications of shoulder joint replacement surgery.

Our study has several important limitations. First, the most suitable duration and dose of aspirin could not be determined when patients are expected to undergo orthopedic surgery. Hence, we could not further determine whether the effects of aspirin dosage and duration have an independent association with perioperative complications. Further research may supplement subgroup analysis of the dose and duration of aspirin intake, which can help determine the ideal dose and duration of L-AU, thereby approaching the maximum benefit risk ratio of L-AU and minimizing perioperative risks. In addition, our results rely on complete data records and accurate coding. However, as the largest management database carrying patient data, the NIS database has been used in many studies, especially those investigating the perioperative consequences of orthopedic surgery patients. Meanwhile, NIS was developed based on the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which includes administrative and demographic data from 20.00% of inpatient samples in the USA. Since 1988, through collaboration among multiple state wide data organizations, it has been compiled annually to provide data on the utilization rate of all paid healthcare [39]. Therefore, the NIS database has high credibility in the data source. Finally, given that the NIS database does not distinguish between initial hospitalization and subsequent hospitalization, we cannot determine multiple hospitalizations for the same patient. Additionally, the NIS database does not contain information on the drugs that the patients received both within the hospital and outside of it. Nevertheless, considering the large size of our sample, it is not likely that this scenario will have a substantial impact on our findings. Unlike registries, which are known to have strong a referral bias, the NIS database allows a larger, more diverse sampling of the real-world experience. The NIS database, which includes data from 46 states in the United States, is the largest fully paid hospitalization database, making it the best tool for analyzing the trends and consequences of rare disease hospitalizations such as L-AU in the real world [40].


We found a significant increase in patients experiencing SA with pre-existing L-AU in the United States. Despite patients receiving L-AU therapy, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of medical procedures and the number of days from admission to surgery between patients with long-term and non-long-term use of aspirin. Patients with L-AU tend to have more disease diagnoses and a large rise in the total charge though a noticeable decrease in the length of hospitalization was observed. Pre-existing L-AU was associated with increased risk of perioperative complications, such as blood transfusion, acute renal failure, genitourinary disease and acute myocardial infarction. Nonetheless, pre-existing L-AU was identified as a protective factor for acute cerebrovascular disease and stroke. As the answer the second hypothetical question, patients with acute cerebrovascular disease and stroke can improve their postoperative prognosis by taking aspirin for a long time before shoulder replacement surgery. According to the information we have, our work is the first to demonstrate a significant impact of pre-existing L-AU on SA patients. Therefore, we put forward a hypothesis: if further research can find out the appropriate duration and dose of preoperative aspirin to achieve the best treatment recovery, then the specific perioperative complications of joint replacement patients in the preoperative aspirin treatment plan will be a feasible method to reduce the potential risks and potential risks in the future.

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials will be available on reasonable request.



Shoulder arthroplasty


Long-term aspirin use


National inpatient sample


Length of stay


Adjusted odds ratios


Unadjusted odds ratios


Confidential interval


Nationwide inpatient sample


Cardiovascular disease




Produces thromboxane A2


Prostaglandin I2


  1. Wagner ER, Farley KX, Higgins I, Wilson JM, Daly CA, Gottschalk MB. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared with hip and knee arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(12):2601–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dillon MT, Chan PH, Inacio MCS, Singh A, Yian EH, Navarro RA. Yearly trends in elective shoulder arthroplasty, 2005–2013. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69(10):1574–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sidhu VS, Kelly TL, Pratt N, Graves SE, Buchbinder R, Adie S, et al. Effect of aspirin vs enoxaparin on symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty: the CRISTAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2022;328(8):719–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Warkentin TE. Aspirin for dual prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):2039–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, Leslie K, Alonso-Coello P, Kurz A, et al. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adams CB. Aspirin and emboli. Lancet. 1971;2(7731):982.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Myles PS, Smith JA, Forbes A, Silbert B, Jayarajah M, Painter T, et al. Stopping vs continuing aspirin before coronary artery surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(8):728–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mangano DT. Aspirin and mortality from coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(17):1309–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson DR, Dunbar M, Murnaghan J, Kahn SR, Gross P, Forsythe M, et al. Aspirin or rivaroxaban for VTE prophylaxis after hip or knee arthroplasty. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):699–707.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cao L, Young N, Liu H, Silvestry S, Sun W, Zhao N, et al. Preoperative aspirin use and outcomes in cardiac surgery patients. Ann Surg. 2012;255(2):399–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Toole RV, Stein DM, O’Hara NN, Frey KP, Taylor TJ, Scharfstein DO, et al. Aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after a fracture. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(3):203–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meier SK, Pollock BD, Kurtz SM, Lau E. State and government administrative databases: medicare, national inpatient sample (NIS), and state inpatient databases (SID) programs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(Suppl 3):4–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Browne JA, Adib F, Brown TE, Novicoff WM. Transfusion rates are increasing following total hip arthroplasty: risk factors and outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 Suppl):34–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Havenon A, Sheth KN, Johnston KC, Anadani M, Yaghi S, Tirschwell D, et al. Effect of adjusting for baseline stroke severity in the national inpatient sample. Stroke. 2021;52(11):e739–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Is aspirin a dangerous drug? JAMA 2014;312(23):2577.

  18. Chubak J, Whitlock EP, Williams SB, Kamineni A, Burda BU, Buist DS, et al. Aspirin for the prevention of cancer incidence and mortality: systematic evidence reviews for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(12):814–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Capodanno D, Angiolillo DJ. Aspirin for primary cardiovascular risk prevention and beyond in diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2016;134(20):1579–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Prostaglandins, aspirin, and analgesia. Lancet. 1973;1(7810):979.

  21. Jacobs EJ, Thun MJ, Bain EB, Rodriguez C, Henley SJ, Calle EE. A large cohort study of long-term daily use of adult-strength aspirin and cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(8):608–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, Buroker AB, Goldberger ZD, Hahn EJ, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2019;140(11):e596–646.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Cardoso R, Nasir K. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: 2019 and beyond. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019;16(7):387–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khoury M, Urbina EM. Hypertension in adolescents: diagnosis, treatment, and implications. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2021;5(5):357–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guirguis-Blake JM, Evans CV, Perdue LA, Bean SI, Senger CA. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1585–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Henderson JT, Vesco KK, Senger CA, Thomas RG, Redmond N. Aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia and related morbidity and mortality: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;326(12):1192–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patrono C, Baigent C. Role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019;16(11):675–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. García Rodríguez LA, Hernández-Díaz S, de Abajo FJ. Association between aspirin and upper gastrointestinal complications: systematic review of epidemiologic studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52(5):563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002;324(7329):71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Collins R, Emberson J, Godwin J, Peto R, et al. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1849–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marquis-Gravel G, Roe MT, Robertson HR, Harrington RA, Pencina MJ, Berdan LG, et al. Rationale and design of the aspirin Dosing-A patient-centric trial assessing benefits and long-term effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(5):598–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fernández-Ruiz I. Aspirin dosing for secondary prevention in ASCVD. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(8):544.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Muhalwas KK, Shah GM, Winer RL. Renal papillary necrosis caused by long-term ingestion of pentazocine and aspirin. JAMA. 1981;246(8):867–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. CLASP: a randomised trial of low-dose aspirin for the prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia among 9364 pregnant women. CLASP (Collaborative Low-dose Aspirin Study in Pregnancy) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1994;343(8898):619–29.

  35. Liang F, Pan X, Shi Z, Zhang Y, Shi Z, Wang J. Patients receiving knee arthroplasty with pre-existing long-term aspirin use suffer lower risk of perioperative complications but feel more postoperative pain. J Orthop Sci. 2019;28(4):814–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Parvizi J, Ceylan HH, Kucukdurmaz F, Merli G, Tuncay I, Beverland D. Venous thromboembolism following hip and knee arthroplasty: the role of aspirin. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(11):961–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. LaBuda CJ, Fuchs PN. Low dose aspirin attenuates escape/avoidance behavior, but does not reduce mechanical hyperalgesia in a rodent model of inflammatory pain. Neurosci Lett. 2001;304(3):137–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wayangankar SA, Elgendy IY, Xiang Q, Jneid H, Vemulapalli S, Khachatryan T, et al. Length of stay after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(5):422–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Khera R, Angraal S, Couch T, Welsh JW, Nallamothu BK, Girotra S, et al. Adherence to methodological standards in research using the national inpatient sample. JAMA. 2017;318(20):2011–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Anand V, Roy SS, Archer SL, Weir EK, Garg SK, Duval S, et al. Trends and outcomes of pulmonary arterial hypertension-related hospitalizations in the United States: analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample database from 2001 through 2012. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(9):1021–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


None of the authors has financial relationships with any commercial entity.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



HK and HM conceived the study and its design. MH and NA helped in study search and selection. HK and MH finished data extraction and quality assessment. HK wrote original draft. MH, NA, TU, JH, YY, TI and HM revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hao Xie, Fangguo Liang or Yuhui Cui.

Ethics declarations

Ethical review committee statement

Since the study uses a public database, there is no need to obtain permission from the Ethics Review Board or the Institutional review board (IRB).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

ICD-9 codes and ICD-10 codes for perioperative complications.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mao, X., Liang, C., Li, X. et al. The impact of long-term aspirin use on the patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 894 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: