low dose aspirin question

OK - sorry of this post is long, but the details are relevant.

I have been recommended to take low dose aspirin by my GP. I am 43, normal blood pressure, not overweight, fairly fit, never smoked. Recent cholesterol reading 5.5.

I had some chest pains that were stress related. Once the stress issues were resolved, the pains dissapeared and no re-occurrence for 2 months. As part of checking me over generally, my GP sent me for a treadmill ECG as purely precautionary. This showed some very minor irregularity during the last 30 seconds of the test. The cardiologist then prescribed me tildiem 90, low dose aspirin, sivastatin, an angina spray and gave me the card of a local undertaker to carry at all times. I also had a referral for an angiogram that will be in August. The reason for the referral was mainly on the basis that my father has angina.

The question the cardiologist didn't ask was "Did he smoke"? My GP eventually asked this, and the answer is that he was a heavy smoker for most of his adult life. My GP felt that this was probably why he has angina, and there may not necessarily be an inherited factor.

I don't see myself as an angina sufferer basically. I do a 13 mile bike ride over varying terrain 2-3 times a week, I eat fairly heathily and drink with moderation.

The doctor has taken me of sivastatin on the grounds that my cholesterol is
"borderline high", and he agrees with me that I should be allowed a few months to lower my diet by healthier eating and regular exercise. He would have taken me off the tildiem 90 too if it wasn't for the fact that I have the angiogram coming up.

My question here is am I likely to benefit from low dose aspirin? Is the balance between the gain of possible CHD higher than bleeding in my case?

I did read on one website that low dose aspirin is not a benefit unless you are bad enough to have a risk factor on the "Sheffield tables". Reading the
"Sheffield tables" I'm not sure if I actually "have" a risk factor - especially as I haven't been diagnosed with anything as yet.

Does anyone have any input here?

It is my understanding that usually you look for increased risk of heart problems before starting aspirin. On the other hand a heart attack can be worse than a gastric ulcer and I don't know what that "minor irregularity" you speak of was, but it may have been part of the reason to take a closer look at things with an angiogram.

Aspirin can really help and my suggestion is to go along with what your Drs.
say until you get a better picture.

Bill - not a Dr.

Forgot to mention that "Tildiem 90mg" is the brand name used in the UK, but
Dilitiazem is the name of the drug.

That's what I intend to do. I have a follow-up appointment with the cardiologist booked for a few weeks after the angiogram, and I'm intending discussing this at that point.

I can't be more precise on the minor irregularity, as neither the cardiologist or the GP really explained it. I think the reason here is that they may suspect a "False positive" and would rather get more information themselves. I gather that the readings refer to the lower left ventricle, but I may have misheard this. However, I have been told that whatever the irregularity is, it only showed up in the last few seconds of the test.

The difficulty I have is that so far medications seem to have been based on knee jerk reactions, and the need to be cautious to avoid litigation. I'm happy to work with them, and make whatever lifestyle, diet and exercise changes they advise, and take whatever medicines they prescribe. Getting them to work with me, and not rely on knee jerk reactions is a battle!

The statin was prescribed on the basis of one cholesterol test that was probably innacurate anyway. I wasn't told to fast, and had eaten breakfast and a packed lunch in the 12 hours preceding the test. Hence the GP was more than happy to take me off of this, try controlling it with diet and exercise, and go for a proper test after fasting in a couple of months time.

The Dilitiazem may be genuinely required, and I will discuss that after the angiogram. The GP would have taken me off of them temporarily (they make me nauseous), but said that he wouldn't do that until after the angiogram "just in case something happens". He didn't say the rest of the sentence "and you sue us", but there was no doubt that was implied.

The low dose aspirin isn't based on anything historical. My understanding is that the reccomendation to take this is based on the ECG result. I don't really want to take it unless there genuinely *is* an increased risk of heart attack, and until the angiogram I guess we don't really know.

Thanks for the reply.