. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00422-8.Over ten years, about 25 out of 100 patients on clopidogrel had one of these events, compared to about 29 out of 100 on aspirin. Statistically, that’s a hazard ratio of 0.86, with a p value of 0.005, and it translates into an absolute risk reduction of just over 3 percent and a number needed to treat of about 33. In other words, if you treat 33 stable post‑PCI patients with clopidogrel rather than aspirin for ten years, you prevent one net adverse event.Looking only at thrombotic events—cardiovascular death, non‑fatal MI, ischemic stroke, ACS readmission, or stent thrombosis—clopidogrel again came out ahead: roughly 17 percent vs 20 percent, hazard ratio 0.82, p around 0.002. This difference was largely driven by fewer strokes and fewer rehospitalizations for acute coronary syndromes.Now for bleeding. You might worry that better antithrombotic protection would mean more bleeding. In fact, the opposite happened. Any clinically relevant bleeding, BARC type 2 or higher, occurred in about 9 percent of clopidogrel patients versus almost 11 percent on aspirin, with a hazard ratio of 0.81. Major bleeding—BARC type 3, including haemorrhagic stroke—was also lower on clopidogrel: about 5.6 percent vs 7.7 percent. Haemorrhagic stroke itself was cut roughly in half.